The Russian Orthodox churchNot spreading the faithRussia’s Orthodox church has far to go before it wins young people in number into its ranks

“WHAT are we supposed to believe in?” asks Natasha, a student teacher in Tver, a run-down provincial town between Moscow and St Petersburg. “In the past our young people had the party, and its youth movements—the Pioneers, the Komsomol. It was all rubbish, maybe, but at least it was there.” Natasha and her friends at a student café are all training to teach young people. Like 94% of Russians aged 18-29, she does not go to church. She has been once or twice out of curiosity, “but didn’t understand it much”. Her own parents are not religious.

Russian young people live in a moral and spiritual vacuum. A decade after the collapse of communism, there is little to fill it. Schools are mostly tatty, depressing and too short of cash to do more than try to preserve basic educational standards. The youth clubs, summer camps and other activities of the Soviet era have collapsed for lack of money. Sports facilities are expensive. Sergei, a muscular 22-year-old in Irkutsk, in Siberia, spends every morning in the summer months playing football with his friends on a patch of waste ground. The rest of the time he looks for passengers to ferry around town in his decrepit Toyota; the slender profits pay for occasional trips to a sports centre during the winter. He has never been to church.

Young Russians can meet the boredom and poverty of their lives with drugs, alcohol, promiscuous sex and crime, and all too often do so. But this also presents an opportunity for anyone offering something more wholesome. The scout movement, for example, has blossomed since the collapse of communism: there are tens of thousands of members of scout and guide troops, with a wide range of affiliations. Western and other charities that work with young people are usually overwhelmed by the enthusiasm and gratitude of the response. But there is one notable absentee: the Orthodox church.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Russian Orthodox churchNot spreading the faithRussia’s Orthodox church has far to go before it wins young people in number into its ranks

“WHAT are we supposed to believe in?” asks Natasha, a student teacher in Tver, a run-down provincial town between Moscow and St Petersburg. “In the past our young people had the party, and its youth movements—the Pioneers, the Komsomol. It was all rubbish, maybe, but at least it was there.” Natasha and her friends at a student café are all training to teach young people. Like 94% of Russians aged 18-29, she does not go to church. She has been once or twice out of curiosity, “but didn’t understand it much”. Her own parents are not religious.

Russian young people live in a moral and spiritual vacuum. A decade after the collapse of communism, there is little to fill it. Schools are mostly tatty, depressing and too short of cash to do more than try to preserve basic educational standards. The youth clubs, summer camps and other activities of the Soviet era have collapsed for lack of money. Sports facilities are expensive. Sergei, a muscular 22-year-old in Irkutsk, in Siberia, spends every morning in the summer months playing football with his friends on a patch of waste ground. The rest of the time he looks for passengers to ferry around town in his decrepit Toyota; the slender profits pay for occasional trips to a sports centre during the winter. He has never been to church.

Young Russians can meet the boredom and poverty of their lives with drugs, alcohol, promiscuous sex and crime, and all too often do so. But this also presents an opportunity for anyone offering something more wholesome. The scout movement, for example, has blossomed since the collapse of communism: there are tens of thousands of members of scout and guide troops, with a wide range of affiliations. Western and other charities that work with young people are usually overwhelmed by the enthusiasm and gratitude of the response. But there is one notable absentee: the Orthodox church.

What does Eastern Orthodoxy do to evangelize people with no church background? I've seen material aimed at promoting Eastern Orthodoxy to members of non-EO churches, but I don't recall ever seeing material that presents the Gospel to teenagers or adults who were raised in a secular family or culture where they were told that the Bible is just a collection of myths.

After years of atheism and communism, Russia must have many secular and humanistic teens and young adults who won't seriously consider any "Bible story" until their belief in evolution has been challenged. Maybe they would benefit from an aggresssive Creationistic form of evangelism such as Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis promotes. I've heard him talk about this, and his approach is based largely on that of the apostle Paul's sermon given on Mars' Hill (Acts 17:22-34). Getting people to believe in a Creator who will one day judge the world in righteousness is a necessary step for persuading them to abandon their relativistic, purposeless lifestyles.

Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

LOL. I would have to quote something from ten years ago if I'm going to ask the question "how much has changed?"

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That's his point, biro. After a decade has past, what has changed from 2000 to 2012 with the Russian Orthodox Church reaching out to young Russians.

I get the sarcasm. I just don't think he should throw out a blank charge like that, and not have posted what he thinks will back it up.

I could post again the article about 200 new churches being built in Moscow, but then again, we're not allowed to prove him wrong, now, are we?

It would all just mess up his idea that there are people who are not as good Orthodox as he is. And we wouldn't want that.

Why project such motives onto Isa? I don't think he's being sarcastic. He asked a question.

Well, I think so. I'm not projecting a thing: he never seems to approve of anything other jurisdictions are doing, other than the holy Antiochians (because he's one of them). It's funny that you don't see him express sympathy for the fact that the Russians have to fight against problems such as very rich American televangelist ministries sending over their missionaries. No, that might mitigate against his desire to make the ROC look bad.

That's his point, biro. After a decade has past, what has changed from 2000 to 2012 with the Russian Orthodox Church reaching out to young Russians.

I get the sarcasm. I just don't think he should throw out a blank charge like that, and not have posted what he thinks will back it up.

I could post again the article about 200 new churches being built in Moscow, but then again, we're not allowed to prove him wrong, now, are we?

It would all just mess up his idea that there are people who are not as good Orthodox as he is. And we wouldn't want that.

Why project such motives onto Isa? I don't think he's being sarcastic. He asked a question.

Well, I think so. I'm not projecting a thing: he never seems to approve of anything other jurisdictions are doing, other than the holy Antiochians (because he's one of them). It's funny that you don't see him express sympathy for the fact that the Russians have to fight against problems such as very rich American televangelist ministries sending over their missionaries. No, that might mitigate against his desire to make the ROC look bad.

I understand, there are people whom it isn't permitted to question. I shouldn't be surprised that you have no problem with his implied negative claim about the ROC, but instead with my easy proof that he was on the wrong track. (Which I posted several times last year.) I shouldn't be surprised by very much anymore.

The ROC had so many challenges that allowances should be made for some of the dismal indicators of church health. On the negative side, you have the continuing low numbers of regular church attendance and involvement in parish life. On the positive side, the work on infrastructure of the church is paying off dividends. As for evangelization, they are doing something about it, albeit rather timidly. For example, they imported Father Maximus Regis Urbanowicz from the US but did not use him in the main population centers. It seems to me that the ROC is trying the "tried and true" Orthodox way of getting things done through collaboration with the state. As long as the ROC tries to prosper as the de facto state church, I am afraid that she will fail in in her primary mission of making disciples of the people of Russia.

I understand, there are people whom it isn't permitted to question. I shouldn't be surprised that you have no problem with his implied negative claim about the ROC, but instead with my easy proof that he was on the wrong track. (Which I posted several times last year.) I shouldn't be surprised by very much anymore.

There you again casting aspersions, now on my motives. If you've been watching, I've challenged Isa more than once on things.

Hope you're having as wonderful a Lent as I am...

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Building churches alone doesn't prove much, if the churches are empty. How about statistics about church attendance, baptisms etc?

Ok, here you go Jonathan:

Percentage of Russians who attend church reaches 71% - poll

Moscow, February 27, Interfax - The number of Russians who go to temples increased considerably over the past two decades. Sociologists have found that the most frequently observed ritual is the placement of candles in. Over the past 16 years, the number of Russians who go to church, mosque, or synagogue increased ... 83% of Orthodox respondents reported going to church. 11% of the respondents said they go into churches rarely or from time to time... The poll, which was conducted in 138 populated areas in 46 regions, territories, and republics of Russia in mid-February, shows that a considerable number of people who go to temples (38%) just speak to God, 31% read prayers, 27% kiss holy relics, 33% give alms, 29% donate money to temples, and 9% go to temples to sanctify things.

Building churches alone doesn't prove much, if the churches are empty. How about statistics about church attendance, baptisms etc?

Ok, here you go Jonathan:

Percentage of Russians who attend church reaches 71% - poll

Moscow, February 27, Interfax - The number of Russians who go to temples increased considerably over the past two decades. Sociologists have found that the most frequently observed ritual is the placement of candles in. Over the past 16 years, the number of Russians who go to church, mosque, or synagogue increased ... 83% of Orthodox respondents reported going to church. 11% of the respondents said they go into churches rarely or from time to time... The poll, which was conducted in 138 populated areas in 46 regions, territories, and republics of Russia in mid-February, shows that a considerable number of people who go to temples (38%) just speak to God, 31% read prayers, 27% kiss holy relics, 33% give alms, 29% donate money to temples, and 9% go to temples to sanctify things.

Thanks, Nicholas. So, when it says "83% of Orthodox respondents", does that mean 83% of those who identified themselves as Orthodox (as opposed to atheists or agnostics)? Such recipients would be predisposed to be more active in their faith, and wouldn't necessarily indicate any overall increase in Orthodox religiosity among Russians as a whole.

Oh and the headline is misleading. The statistic is actually the percentage of all Russians (or a presumably representative sample of Russians), regardless of religion, who attend either church or synagogue or mosque. I'm not sure if "church" is exclusively Orthodox, but later the article suggests that the survey covered every possible religious building. So 71% of Russian citizens we can say visit a religious building at least "rarely" (whatever that means; I suppose a reasonable interpretation is about once a year). 7% of the respondents report attending at least once a month, and I would say that, from an Orthodox perspective, once a month is the normal threshold for being considered serious about one's faith. Less than that and I think you can reasonably question the individual's commitment to Orthodoxy (barring some unusual circumstances).

7% of citizens as committed believers (of any religious persuasion, mind) is not much better than the statistics we get from secularized northern European countries, like Denmark. And of course of these we don't know how many are committed Orthodox, as opposed to committed Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or whatever. Jews are a small minority in Russia, so I wouldn't expect them to make much statistical impact, even if they all attended synagogue every week. There are quite a few more Muslims, however, and we know that in general they are more religiously active than Christians of any persuasion, so I expect a significant proportion of that 7% is due to increased Muslim activity.

So, in conclusion, the report (assuming that its methodology is sound) does provide evidence from some increased religiosity in Russia in recent years, but doesn't really tell us how much of that is due to the increased influence of the official Orthodox Church.

Building churches alone doesn't prove much, if the churches are empty. How about statistics about church attendance, baptisms etc?

Ok, here you go Jonathan:

Percentage of Russians who attend church reaches 71% - poll

Moscow, February 27, Interfax - The number of Russians who go to temples increased considerably over the past two decades. Sociologists have found that the most frequently observed ritual is the placement of candles in. Over the past 16 years, the number of Russians who go to church, mosque, or synagogue increased ... 83% of Orthodox respondents reported going to church. 11% of the respondents said they go into churches rarely or from time to time... The poll, which was conducted in 138 populated areas in 46 regions, territories, and republics of Russia in mid-February, shows that a considerable number of people who go to temples (38%) just speak to God, 31% read prayers, 27% kiss holy relics, 33% give alms, 29% donate money to temples, and 9% go to temples to sanctify things.

Thanks, Nicholas. So, when it says "83% of Orthodox respondents", does that mean 83% of those who identified themselves as Orthodox (as opposed to atheists or agnostics)?

Building churches alone doesn't prove much, if the churches are empty. How about statistics about church attendance, baptisms etc?

Ok, here you go Jonathan:

Percentage of Russians who attend church reaches 71% - poll

Moscow, February 27, Interfax - The number of Russians who go to temples increased considerably over the past two decades. Sociologists have found that the most frequently observed ritual is the placement of candles in. Over the past 16 years, the number of Russians who go to church, mosque, or synagogue increased ... 83% of Orthodox respondents reported going to church. 11% of the respondents said they go into churches rarely or from time to time... The poll, which was conducted in 138 populated areas in 46 regions, territories, and republics of Russia in mid-February, shows that a considerable number of people who go to temples (38%) just speak to God, 31% read prayers, 27% kiss holy relics, 33% give alms, 29% donate money to temples, and 9% go to temples to sanctify things.

You omitted the most important facts (from the article that you cited):

Over the past 16 years, the number of Russians who go to church, mosque, or synagogue increased from 57% to 71%. 7% of the respondents go to religious buildings at least once a month, 30% go to religious buildings from time to time, and 34% go to religious buildings rarely.

Building churches alone doesn't prove much, if the churches are empty. How about statistics about church attendance, baptisms etc?

Ok, here you go Jonathan:

Percentage of Russians who attend church reaches 71% - poll

Moscow, February 27, Interfax - The number of Russians who go to temples increased considerably over the past two decades. Sociologists have found that the most frequently observed ritual is the placement of candles in. Over the past 16 years, the number of Russians who go to church, mosque, or synagogue increased ... 83% of Orthodox respondents reported going to church. 11% of the respondents said they go into churches rarely or from time to time... The poll, which was conducted in 138 populated areas in 46 regions, territories, and republics of Russia in mid-February, shows that a considerable number of people who go to temples (38%) just speak to God, 31% read prayers, 27% kiss holy relics, 33% give alms, 29% donate money to temples, and 9% go to temples to sanctify things.

You omitted the most important facts (from the article that you cited):

Over the past 16 years, the number of Russians who go to church, mosque, or synagogue increased from 57% to 71%.

That is why. It is a start for a previously Atheist country. There are lots of Christeasters (Come only for for Pascha and the Nativity) in every country. Haven't you seen the number of people at your parish at least triple for these great Feasts too?

While not the same (much to Vladik's chagrin), perhaps Nektarios can speak to how different things are in Ukraine as opposed to ten years ago?

This sort of post really has to be contextualized. The late Soviet Union offered a lot of good things, and nearly everyone who grew up in the USSR (i.e 60s, 70s, 80s) had a great childhood. People weren't rich, but there were a lot of social services that made life interesting. This odd critter called a palace of culture was all over the place. These served the gambit from entertainment for children, to gyms, to cultural centers for performing and fine arts as well as continuing education centers for adults. Schools were generally high quality. In short there were plenty of wholesome, good things to do for people for little or no cost whatsoever. Then the 90s rolled around, which across the board people will tell you were the worst times of their lives. All of those good, wholesome things were gone. Unemployment instantly became out of control. Enter the lost generation.

The Church was in a curious state at this point in the late Soviet period. I'd say it was something like Stockholm syndrome, but even beyond that. The Church was privileged but in a very odd sort of way. All of the hierarchy were true Soviet people, not like their ethnic counterparts in diaspora churches. The idea of having to keep your Church alive (and more practically yourself fed) by filling the pews (metaphorically) simply didn't exist among Soviet clergy and doesn't really seem to exist in the modern MP either. This really does breed a certain arrogance. I'm Herr Priest - kiss my....

So where do these two stories connect? The lost generation here really is searching for something. Unfortunately making vodka at home is nearly free. Beer is still considered a foodstuff in Ukraine (was recently considered alcoholic in Russia). Alcoholism was one out. It doesn't take long to realize an unfortunately high number of people have chosen this route. Drugs, sex, entertainment along those lines is another popular route. Google "krokodil drug" to see something absolutely horrific. I've seen this in real life. It is simply indescribable. Alcohol has ravaged the lower and lower-middle classes. The Orthodox Church, for the most part, isn't going near these lepers. The braver Protestant and Muslim missionaries do but not with great success.

The upper-middle and parts of the middle class have got one with life since the fall of USSR. These are the sorts of people who can afford to do the things I mentioned in the late Soviet period (i.e visit a sports hall). The ideology of communism gone and nothing to fill the void, there is a great intellectual curiosity. Some go down the road of substance abuse, mindless entertainment etc. Others do choose the spiritual path. New Age sorts of things are popular and Yoga centers are sprouting up like mushrooms here. These are more Yoga as life-style: they promote abstinence from alcohol and usually have attached vegetarian cafes. Protestant communities are also sprouting up all over. I've mentioned in other threads why I think people are attracted to them; there's no need to repeat that here. Like has been mentioned, Orthodox churches are also slowly increasing. A general awareness of Orthodoxy is definitely on the rise, even if observance isn't. The demographics of the parishes that I've attended are fairly typically: mostly old women (60-80%) and (get ready...) yuppies. I don't mean this disparagingly as I'd put myself in this group.

What is the Church doing to draw people in? Pretty much nothing. The attitude still prevails that Russians should automatically be Orthodox therefore the Church need not evangelize. To many in power it makes more sense to simply persecute Protestants and find Catholic boogy-men rather than draw people in. Of course there are exceptions and my gut feeling is that things will get better as the new generation starts to take over. One of the biggest problems is the inherent clericalism and conservationism (by this I mean ossification) of the Church here. As the article Isa quoted mentioned, "she does not go to church. She has been once or twice out of curiosity, “but didn’t understand it much”." I can't emphasize enough that unless you already know the text of the Divine Liturgy really well, you will not actually understand anything if you walk into an MP parish. People aren't friendly in churches. If you make some accidental faux paux you will be yelled out. If you buy a prayerbook it will be very difficult to understand. Generally speaking the emphasis is on external forms and observances. It is a somewhat of a caricature, but I see it a lot: eat, drink and be merry - fast during Holy Week, go to confession, go to communion on Easter and that's the extent of Orthodox life. This isn't everywhere, but it is pretty common. There are decent priests and parishes out there, but IME mediocrity predominates. If Ukraine had been my first exposure to Orthodoxy, there is absolutely no way I would have decided to become Orthodox.

To answer the question - yes things are different than ten years ago and getting better, but there is still a long, long way to go.

It's funny that you don't see him express sympathy for the fact that the Russians have to fight against problems such as very rich American televangelist ministries sending over their missionaries. No, that might mitigate against his desire to make the ROC look bad.

I think my Russophile tendencies are well documented. Take a look here at any conversation I had with Heorhij.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That's his point, biro. After a decade has past, what has changed from 2000 to 2012 with the Russian Orthodox Church reaching out to young Russians.

I get the sarcasm. I just don't think he should throw out a blank charge like that, and not have posted what he thinks will back it up.

I could post again the article about 200 new churches being built in Moscow, but then again, we're not allowed to prove him wrong, now, are we?

It would all just mess up his idea that there are people who are not as good Orthodox as he is. And we wouldn't want that.

I could list all sorts of better Orthodox than me, but I already have 24,000 posts and I don't need to make it 50,000

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There was a reason why Holy Mother Russia collapsed and the Bolsheviks took over.

If every single person in Russia were Orthodox, there would still be a reason for outreach by the Church and conversion. Like any country.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Over a decade after the events under question in the OP, a lot has changed.

Gee, do you think something new may have happened since the early 2000s?

But let's just throw the implication out there that it hasn't, which is what he did. And still I am the one who questions this, and we see what happens. Sigh...

Figures. Again, I should have known what to expect.

All right, I get it. We have always been at war with Eastasia. There is no man behind the curtain.

Happy Pascha. I'll get out of your way.

Wow what is with this dude? Legit question. Its not going to be easy to undo the damage of the communist wretches and their mindF$!@ing of the Russian population. I can see the same stuff beginning here how kids dont even know about Genesis and Christ, when I grew up it was taken for granted.

I think copies of Alexander Schmemmans "For the Life of the World" would do wonders. If that book doesnt seriously contribute to a conversion I dont know what will. Such an organic picture of salvation history and the sacraments it makes the more legalized western take seem almost perverse. But one thing they will need above all else is a heart. If you have a heart, you can be converted. Most of these people are at the state in what CS Lewis describes in 'Abolition of Man'. Basically you're nothing but a robot. You're not human because you have no heart which affects your worldview, etc... etc...

Its not going to be easy to undo the damage of the communist wretches and their mindF$!@ing of the Russian population.

This, in my view, is part of the problem. All ills of Russian society are blamed on "communism" by outsiders. Lately that is becoming more and more of fashionable excuse domestically. This is branded about as if "communism" were some tiny element of society that wreaked havoc on the rest. The reality is that a very large percentage of society supported the early Bolsheviks because of their political agenda. Thousands upon thousands gleefully destroyed their churches. To this day the Orthodox Church has no real comprehension of its own culpability in this.

Its not going to be easy to undo the damage of the communist wretches and their mindF$!@ing of the Russian population.

This, in my view, is part of the problem. All ills of Russian society are blamed on "communism" by outsiders. Lately that is becoming more and more of fashionable excuse domestically. This is branded about as if "communism" were some tiny element of society that wreaked havoc on the rest. The reality is that a very large percentage of society supported the early Bolsheviks because of their political agenda. Thousands upon thousands gleefully destroyed their churches. To this day the Orthodox Church has no real comprehension of its own culpability in this.

Well for every one compliant 100 were martyred, probably more, and its a bit easier to be compliant with a gun to your head. Even Sergius needed to be tortured for a few years or so. The fact of the matter is, the powers that be put in all sorts of programs to de-Christianize Russia. This anti-theist mentality permeated only well after the revolution and it was more the rulers or officers in the military. Now at the time of the revolution, there might have been some anger towards conceived corruption in the church(so said the Bolsheviks to be sure), and surely against the aristocrats, but in general it was not against Orthodoxy per se. That was an outright campaign from the commies to blot it out. Thier mission was to erase that from the hearts and minds so they could forge in their own sick godless image as you being an instrument of the state. Whatever the Russian soldiers problems were with the ruling class it was most likely exaggerated and inflamed by communist elements in the first place to gain power, but to say the mind set of the Russian people towards the church en masse was anything like how it was after being raped by an atheist state for 80 years is ludicrous.

While not the same (much to Vladik's chagrin), perhaps Nektarios can speak to how different things are in Ukraine as opposed to ten years ago?

This sort of post really has to be contextualized. The late Soviet Union offered a lot of good things, and nearly everyone who grew up in the USSR (i.e 60s, 70s, 80s) had a great childhood. People weren't rich, but there were a lot of social services that made life interesting. This odd critter called a palace of culture was all over the place. These served the gambit from entertainment for children, to gyms, to cultural centers for performing and fine arts as well as continuing education centers for adults. Schools were generally high quality. In short there were plenty of wholesome, good things to do for people for little or no cost whatsoever. Then the 90s rolled around, which across the board people will tell you were the worst times of their lives. All of those good, wholesome things were gone. Unemployment instantly became out of control. Enter the lost generation.

The Church was in a curious state at this point in the late Soviet period. I'd say it was something like Stockholm syndrome, but even beyond that. The Church was privileged but in a very odd sort of way. All of the hierarchy were true Soviet people, not like their ethnic counterparts in diaspora churches. The idea of having to keep your Church alive (and more practically yourself fed) by filling the pews (metaphorically) simply didn't exist among Soviet clergy and doesn't really seem to exist in the modern MP either. This really does breed a certain arrogance. I'm Herr Priest - kiss my....

So where do these two stories connect? The lost generation here really is searching for something. Unfortunately making vodka at home is nearly free. Beer is still considered a foodstuff in Ukraine (was recently considered alcoholic in Russia). Alcoholism was one out. It doesn't take long to realize an unfortunately high number of people have chosen this route. Drugs, sex, entertainment along those lines is another popular route. Google "krokodil drug" to see something absolutely horrific. I've seen this in real life. It is simply indescribable. Alcohol has ravaged the lower and lower-middle classes. The Orthodox Church, for the most part, isn't going near these lepers. The braver Protestant and Muslim missionaries do but not with great success.

The upper-middle and parts of the middle class have got one with life since the fall of USSR. These are the sorts of people who can afford to do the things I mentioned in the late Soviet period (i.e visit a sports hall). The ideology of communism gone and nothing to fill the void, there is a great intellectual curiosity. Some go down the road of substance abuse, mindless entertainment etc. Others do choose the spiritual path. New Age sorts of things are popular and Yoga centers are sprouting up like mushrooms here. These are more Yoga as life-style: they promote abstinence from alcohol and usually have attached vegetarian cafes. Protestant communities are also sprouting up all over. I've mentioned in other threads why I think people are attracted to them; there's no need to repeat that here. Like has been mentioned, Orthodox churches are also slowly increasing. A general awareness of Orthodoxy is definitely on the rise, even if observance isn't. The demographics of the parishes that I've attended are fairly typically: mostly old women (60-80%) and (get ready...) yuppies. I don't mean this disparagingly as I'd put myself in this group.

What is the Church doing to draw people in? Pretty much nothing. The attitude still prevails that Russians should automatically be Orthodox therefore the Church need not evangelize. To many in power it makes more sense to simply persecute Protestants and find Catholic boogy-men rather than draw people in. Of course there are exceptions and my gut feeling is that things will get better as the new generation starts to take over. One of the biggest problems is the inherent clericalism and conservationism (by this I mean ossification) of the Church here. As the article Isa quoted mentioned, "she does not go to church. She has been once or twice out of curiosity, “but didn’t understand it much”." I can't emphasize enough that unless you already know the text of the Divine Liturgy really well, you will not actually understand anything if you walk into an MP parish. People aren't friendly in churches. If you make some accidental faux paux you will be yelled out. If you buy a prayerbook it will be very difficult to understand. Generally speaking the emphasis is on external forms and observances. It is a somewhat of a caricature, but I see it a lot: eat, drink and be merry - fast during Holy Week, go to confession, go to communion on Easter and that's the extent of Orthodox life. This isn't everywhere, but it is pretty common. There are decent priests and parishes out there, but IME mediocrity predominates. If Ukraine had been my first exposure to Orthodoxy, there is absolutely no way I would have decided to become Orthodox.

To answer the question - yes things are different than ten years ago and getting better, but there is still a long, long way to go.

Its not going to be easy to undo the damage of the communist wretches and their mindF$!@ing of the Russian population.

This, in my view, is part of the problem. All ills of Russian society are blamed on "communism" by outsiders. Lately that is becoming more and more of fashionable excuse domestically. This is branded about as if "communism" were some tiny element of society that wreaked havoc on the rest. The reality is that a very large percentage of society supported the early Bolsheviks because of their political agenda. Thousands upon thousands gleefully destroyed their churches. To this day the Orthodox Church has no real comprehension of its own culpability in this.

Well for every one compliant 100 were martyred, probably more, and its a bit easier to be compliant with a gun to your head. Even Sergius needed to be tortured for a few years or so. The fact of the matter is, the powers that be put in all sorts of programs to de-Christianize Russia. This anti-theist mentality permeated only well after the revolution and it was more the rulers or officers in the military. Now at the time of the revolution, there might have been some anger towards conceived corruption in the church(so said the Bolsheviks to be sure), and surely against the aristocrats, but in general it was not against Orthodoxy per se. That was an outright campaign from the commies to blot it out. Thier mission was to erase that from the hearts and minds so they could forge in their own sick godless image as you being an instrument of the state. Whatever the Russian soldiers problems were with the ruling class it was most likely exaggerated and inflamed by communist elements in the first place to gain power, but to say the mind set of the Russian people towards the church en masse was anything like how it was after being raped by an atheist state for 80 years is ludicrous.

Do you have any sort of academic sources to back up your claims? I'm particularly interested in your quantitative claims. Off the top of my head the numbers I remember from my university courses on the topic were about 20% active supports of the regime (i.e party members, members of the police, actual material supporters). That's a far cry from 1%. The fact remains that people were willing to abandon the Church fairly quickly (not all of course, but in large enough numbers to make it feasible to persecute the Church). Have you read much by Ivan Bunin? The more I read, the more accurate I think his depiction of rural life in the Russian Empire was. Christianization was very superficial in many aspects, hence quickly abandoning it when it became politically expedient to do so.

The topic is quite complex, and like Nektarios, I am much more familiar with Ukraine than with Russia. But there is one point I do want to mention: My impression in Ukraine is that most parishes nowadays depend on wealthy sponsors much more than on the actual parishoners, both for financing the construction of buildings and for the salaries of the clergy. And if normal people pay larger amounts of money, than that is not in the form of monthly tithing, but reather for special occasions such as baptisms, weddings and funerals.

That means that there is no direct relationship between the number of people regularly attending and the money in the priest's pocket. And in many cases, that indeed leads to mediocre results. But there are quite some examples to the contrary: If clergy with a vision and a supportive sponsor come together, quite a lot can be done. A good example for this would be the monks of St. Jonah's monastery in Kyiv's Botanical Garden, who are running a great youth ministry, and who have renovated the monastery to a wonderful state, after it was used as a waste disposal during communist times. All this happened with the support of Petro Poroshenko, the chocolate oligarch.

As for being welcomed in parishes, I did notice that hardly anyone actually welcomes newcomers in most parishes of the MP in Ukraine. People are usually just being ignored. That is a big problem, especially since the Greek Catholics (and Protestants) are doing much better at this. In fact, it is a pity that the UGCC is Catholic, because apart from being in communion with Rome, it is just as good Orthodox Church should be: Welcoming, a strong faith but without fanatism, beautiful liturgies in the language of the people, putting a strong emphasis on education...

Its not going to be easy to undo the damage of the communist wretches and their mindF$!@ing of the Russian population.

This, in my view, is part of the problem. All ills of Russian society are blamed on "communism" by outsiders. Lately that is becoming more and more of fashionable excuse domestically. This is branded about as if "communism" were some tiny element of society that wreaked havoc on the rest. The reality is that a very large percentage of society supported the early Bolsheviks because of their political agenda. Thousands upon thousands gleefully destroyed their churches. To this day the Orthodox Church has no real comprehension of its own culpability in this.

Well for every one compliant 100 were martyred, probably more, and its a bit easier to be compliant with a gun to your head. Even Sergius needed to be tortured for a few years or so. The fact of the matter is, the powers that be put in all sorts of programs to de-Christianize Russia. This anti-theist mentality permeated only well after the revolution and it was more the rulers or officers in the military. Now at the time of the revolution, there might have been some anger towards conceived corruption in the church(so said the Bolsheviks to be sure), and surely against the aristocrats, but in general it was not against Orthodoxy per se. That was an outright campaign from the commies to blot it out. Thier mission was to erase that from the hearts and minds so they could forge in their own sick godless image as you being an instrument of the state. Whatever the Russian soldiers problems were with the ruling class it was most likely exaggerated and inflamed by communist elements in the first place to gain power, but to say the mind set of the Russian people towards the church en masse was anything like how it was after being raped by an atheist state for 80 years is ludicrous.

Do you have any sort of academic sources to back up your claims? I'm particularly interested in your quantitative claims. Off the top of my head the numbers I remember from my university courses on the topic were about 20% active supports of the regime (i.e party members, members of the police, actual material supporters). That's a far cry from 1%. The fact remains that people were willing to abandon the Church fairly quickly (not all of course, but in large enough numbers to make it feasible to persecute the Church). Have you read much by Ivan Bunin? The more I read, the more accurate I think his depiction of rural life in the Russian Empire was. Christianization was very superficial in many aspects, hence quickly abandoning it when it became politically expedient to do so.

I would not be surprised if a bell curve existed: 20% Bolsheviks, 60% passives, and 20% opposed/martyred.

The Russian Orthodox Church went through 74 years of Communist rule, followed by a decade of immense national stagnation, confusion and impoverishment (which few seem to want to factor in). In that decade (and the decade that followed it) it has had to confront everything from nationalist schisms (Ukraine, Estonia and, to a much lesser extent, Belarus), the foundation of innumerable "Catacomb" and "True Orthodox" groups, sects from East and West, numerous theological disputes within the Church itself, the arising of long-suppressed ultranationalist pathologies combined with the rapid invasion of Western-style consumerist and liberal ideologies, and relentlessly negative media portrayals within and outside Russia. While trying to deal with these problems, the Russian Orthodox Church also had to improve its seminary system, restore its traditions, build its own media and communications system, and basically find its bearings in a rapidly-changing world -- all the while being led by a relatively small group of bishops, few of whom had the education or background to effectively deal with these things.

It received thousands of churches and buildings back from the Russian State in the past two decades, but these tended to be dilapidated if not completely ruined inside, and many of the great churches that have been restored tend to be in places where people no longer live; hence the drive to construct new churches in the suburbs where people actually live.

To this outside observer, it is a miracle that not only is the Russian Orthodox Church alive, it is also growing in terms of the number of churches and the number of adherents, even if there are debates regarding the extent of that growth.

In contrast, my own Church, the Catholic Church, has had relative peace and prosperity for the past many decades, and even to this day; the media attacks on it, while on a terrible scale, hardly compare to a bloody persecution, and the great majority of Catholics are free to exercise their faith. For 26 years it was led by a Pope who commanded unprecedented international respect and prestige. It has spent untold sums, invested unimaginable resources on every program of evangelization that one can think of, from all sorts of youth programs to massive social works. And yet, we close thousands of churches all over the world every year, and thousands more await closure in the next 2 decades as the last priests ordained prior to Vatican II enter retirement. There is much hype about the explosive growth of the Catholic Church in newly-evangelized areas Asia and Africa, but it remains to be seen how deeply the faith has actually been planted in these areas. (If the recent history of African countries with large Catholic populations such as Uganda, the two Congos, Central Africa, Rwanda, and Burundi are any indication, the answer is -- not very deeply.)

Meanwhile, in the "old countries" of Catholicism the only story is one of rapid secularization and loss of faith.

I've read, from time to time, of Orthodox who urge their co-religionists to adopt Protestant methods. Oh, no, you don't know what you are talking about. We Catholics have adopted almost every Protestant / Evangelical / Pentecostal trick on the book, from charismatic worship to a style of apologetics and preaching that is de facto 'sola scriptura'. Has this helped the Catholic Church in the long run? I think these have only contributed to the Protestantization of Catholicism and the loss of millions to Protestantism. Why imitate Protestantism when you can be a real Protestant? Be careful what you wish for.

Perhaps this is the best path of evangelization: the tried and true path of keeping to the traditions of the Church. I think this is what the Russians are doing. It may not necessarily bring in the crowds, but it surely keeps the faith, in the hope of a better tomorrow. This is the same path used by Traditional Catholics and Traditional Anglicans.

I do not know what scandalizes me more: the fact that most Russians are "unchurched", or the fact that other Orthodox are more than happy to put down and denigrate their fellow Russian Orthodox for not being a perfect Church.

Its not going to be easy to undo the damage of the communist wretches and their mindF$!@ing of the Russian population.

This, in my view, is part of the problem. All ills of Russian society are blamed on "communism" by outsiders. Lately that is becoming more and more of fashionable excuse domestically. This is branded about as if "communism" were some tiny element of society that wreaked havoc on the rest. The reality is that a very large percentage of society supported the early Bolsheviks because of their political agenda. Thousands upon thousands gleefully destroyed their churches. To this day the Orthodox Church has no real comprehension of its own culpability in this.

Well for every one compliant 100 were martyred, probably more, and its a bit easier to be compliant with a gun to your head. Even Sergius needed to be tortured for a few years or so. The fact of the matter is, the powers that be put in all sorts of programs to de-Christianize Russia. This anti-theist mentality permeated only well after the revolution and it was more the rulers or officers in the military. Now at the time of the revolution, there might have been some anger towards conceived corruption in the church(so said the Bolsheviks to be sure), and surely against the aristocrats, but in general it was not against Orthodoxy per se. That was an outright campaign from the commies to blot it out. Thier mission was to erase that from the hearts and minds so they could forge in their own sick godless image as you being an instrument of the state. Whatever the Russian soldiers problems were with the ruling class it was most likely exaggerated and inflamed by communist elements in the first place to gain power, but to say the mind set of the Russian people towards the church en masse was anything like how it was after being raped by an atheist state for 80 years is ludicrous.

Do you have any sort of academic sources to back up your claims? I'm particularly interested in your quantitative claims. Off the top of my head the numbers I remember from my university courses on the topic were about 20% active supports of the regime (i.e party members, members of the police, actual material supporters). That's a far cry from 1%. The fact remains that people were willing to abandon the Church fairly quickly (not all of course, but in large enough numbers to make it feasible to persecute the Church). Have you read much by Ivan Bunin? The more I read, the more accurate I think his depiction of rural life in the Russian Empire was. Christianization was very superficial in many aspects, hence quickly abandoning it when it became politically expedient to do so.

I would not be surprised if a bell curve existed: 20% Bolsheviks, 60% passives, and 20% opposed/martyred.

You're probably right about there being a bell curve, though I'd probably put the percentages closer to 10/80/10.

The Russian Orthodox Church went through 74 years of Communist rule, followed by a decade of immense national stagnation, confusion and impoverishment (which few seem to want to factor in). In that decade it also confronted everything from nationalist schisms (Ukraine, Estonia and, to a much lesser extent, Belarus), the foundation of innumerable "Catacomb" and "True Orthodox" groups, sects from East and West, numerous theological disputes within the Church itself, the arising of long-suppressed ultranationalist pathologies combined with the rapid invasion of Western-style consumerist and liberal ideologies, and relentlessly negative media portrayals within and outside Russia. It received thousands of churches and buildings back from the Russian State in the past two decades, but these tended to be dilapidated if not completely ruined inside, and many of the great churches that have been restored tend to be in places where people no longer live; hence the drive to construct new churches in the suburbs where people actually live.

To this outside observer, it is a miracle that not only is the Russian Orthodox Church alive, it is also growing in terms of the number of churches and the number of adherents, even if there are debates regarding the extent of that growth.

In contrast, my own Church, the Catholic Church, has had relative peace and prosperity for the past many decades, and even to this day; the media attacks on it, while on a terrible scale, hardly compare to a bloody persecution, and the great majority of Catholics are free to exercise their faith. For 26 years it was led by a Pope who commanded unprecedented international respect and prestige. It has spent untold sums, invested unimaginable resources on every program of evangelization that one can think of, from all sorts of youth programs to massive social works. And yet, we close thousands of churches all over the world every year, and thousands more await closure in the next 2 decades as the last priests ordained prior to Vatican II enter retirement. There is much hype about the explosive growth of the Catholic Church in newly-evangelized areas Asia and Africa, but it remains to be seen how deeply the faith has actually been planted in these areas. (If the recent history of African countries with large Catholic populations such as Uganda, the two Congos, Central Africa, Rwanda, and Burundi are any indication, the answer is -- not very deeply.)

Meanwhile, in the "old countries" of Catholicism the only story is one of rapid secularization and loss of faith.

I've read, from time to time, of Orthodox who urge their co-religionists to adopt Protestant methods. Oh, no, you don't know what you are talking about. We Catholics have adopted almost every Protestant / Evangelical / Pentecostal trick on the book, from charismatic worship to a style of apologetics and preaching that is de facto 'sola scriptura'. Has this helped the Catholic Church in the long run? I think these have only contributed to the Protestantization of Catholicism and the loss of millions to Protestantism. Why imitate Protestantism when you can be a real Protestant? Be careful what you wish for.

Perhaps this is the best path of evangelization: the tried and true path of keeping to the traditions of the Church. I think this is what the Russians are doing. It may not necessarily bring in the crowds, but it surely keeps the faith, in the hope of a better tomorrow. This is the same path used by Traditional Catholics and Traditional Anglicans.

I do not know what scandalizes me more: the fact that most Russians are "unchurched", or the fact that other Orthodox are more than happy to put down and denigrate their fellow Russian Orthodox for not being a perfect Church.

The Russian Orthodox Church went through 74 years of Communist rule, followed by a decade of immense national stagnation, confusion and impoverishment (which few seem to want to factor in). In that decade (and the decade that followed it) it has had to confront everything from nationalist schisms (Ukraine, Estonia and, to a much lesser extent, Belarus), the foundation of innumerable "Catacomb" and "True Orthodox" groups, sects from East and West, numerous theological disputes within the Church itself, the arising of long-suppressed ultranationalist pathologies combined with the rapid invasion of Western-style consumerist and liberal ideologies, and relentlessly negative media portrayals within and outside Russia. While trying to deal with these problems, the Russian Orthodox Church also had to improve its seminary system, restore its traditions, build its own media and communications system, and basically find its bearings in a rapidly-changing world -- all the while being led by a relatively small group of bishops, few of whom had the education or background to effectively deal with these things.

It received thousands of churches and buildings back from the Russian State in the past two decades, but these tended to be dilapidated if not completely ruined inside, and many of the great churches that have been restored tend to be in places where people no longer live; hence the drive to construct new churches in the suburbs where people actually live.

To this outside observer, it is a miracle that not only is the Russian Orthodox Church alive, it is also growing in terms of the number of churches and the number of adherents, even if there are debates regarding the extent of that growth.

In contrast, my own Church, the Catholic Church, has had relative peace and prosperity for the past many decades, and even to this day; the media attacks on it, while on a terrible scale, hardly compare to a bloody persecution, and the great majority of Catholics are free to exercise their faith. For 26 years it was led by a Pope who commanded unprecedented international respect and prestige. It has spent untold sums, invested unimaginable resources on every program of evangelization that one can think of, from all sorts of youth programs to massive social works. And yet, we close thousands of churches all over the world every year, and thousands more await closure in the next 2 decades as the last priests ordained prior to Vatican II enter retirement. There is much hype about the explosive growth of the Catholic Church in newly-evangelized areas Asia and Africa, but it remains to be seen how deeply the faith has actually been planted in these areas. (If the recent history of African countries with large Catholic populations such as Uganda, the two Congos, Central Africa, Rwanda, and Burundi are any indication, the answer is -- not very deeply.)

Meanwhile, in the "old countries" of Catholicism the only story is one of rapid secularization and loss of faith.

I've read, from time to time, of Orthodox who urge their co-religionists to adopt Protestant methods. Oh, no, you don't know what you are talking about. We Catholics have adopted almost every Protestant / Evangelical / Pentecostal trick on the book, from charismatic worship to a style of apologetics and preaching that is de facto 'sola scriptura'. Has this helped the Catholic Church in the long run? I think these have only contributed to the Protestantization of Catholicism and the loss of millions to Protestantism. Why imitate Protestantism when you can be a real Protestant? Be careful what you wish for.

Perhaps this is the best path of evangelization: the tried and true path of keeping to the traditions of the Church. I think this is what the Russians are doing. It may not necessarily bring in the crowds, but it surely keeps the faith, in the hope of a better tomorrow. This is the same path used by Traditional Catholics and Traditional Anglicans.

I do not know what scandalizes me more: the fact that most Russians are "unchurched", or the fact that other Orthodox are more than happy to put down and denigrate their fellow Russian Orthodox for not being a perfect Church.

Well speaking from my point of view as a True Orthodox Christian, the point is not that the members of the Moscow Patriarchate are not perfect. We're certainly not perfect, either. The point is that the MP stands for something besides merely "keeping the traditions"; it stands for compromise with worldly, even Satanic power. How come the MP got to keep the few church buildings it did, while the Catacomb Church had to make do with serving liturgy in apartments and hidden places? Because the MP hierarchs chose to subordinate Christ to the atheist State. Even though the aims of the Communist State were diametrically opposed to those of Christ's Church, the MP agreed to proclaim that the aims of international socialism were the same as those of the Church. This is, of course, a lie, and we can't find the Truth among lies.

You are asking people to feel sorry for the MP. But take the examples of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. Certainly we could feel sorry for the one who gave in before the end, but even if we can sympathize with him, the Church does not identify with or honor the one who gave in under terrible torture, but those who never gave in at all, because of their unshakeable faith in Christ. I can feel sorry for many in the MP, given their circumstances, but ultimately I can't consider them, rather than the steadfast Catacomb Church, to be the "rock" upon which Christ builds His Church.

Its not going to be easy to undo the damage of the communist wretches and their mindF$!@ing of the Russian population.

This, in my view, is part of the problem. All ills of Russian society are blamed on "communism" by outsiders. Lately that is becoming more and more of fashionable excuse domestically. This is branded about as if "communism" were some tiny element of society that wreaked havoc on the rest. The reality is that a very large percentage of society supported the early Bolsheviks because of their political agenda. Thousands upon thousands gleefully destroyed their churches. To this day the Orthodox Church has no real comprehension of its own culpability in this.

Well for every one compliant 100 were martyred, probably more, and its a bit easier to be compliant with a gun to your head. Even Sergius needed to be tortured for a few years or so. The fact of the matter is, the powers that be put in all sorts of programs to de-Christianize Russia. This anti-theist mentality permeated only well after the revolution and it was more the rulers or officers in the military. Now at the time of the revolution, there might have been some anger towards conceived corruption in the church(so said the Bolsheviks to be sure), and surely against the aristocrats, but in general it was not against Orthodoxy per se. That was an outright campaign from the commies to blot it out. Thier mission was to erase that from the hearts and minds so they could forge in their own sick godless image as you being an instrument of the state. Whatever the Russian soldiers problems were with the ruling class it was most likely exaggerated and inflamed by communist elements in the first place to gain power, but to say the mind set of the Russian people towards the church en masse was anything like how it was after being raped by an atheist state for 80 years is ludicrous.

Do you have any sort of academic sources to back up your claims? I'm particularly interested in your quantitative claims. Off the top of my head the numbers I remember from my university courses on the topic were about 20% active supports of the regime (i.e party members, members of the police, actual material supporters). That's a far cry from 1%. The fact remains that people were willing to abandon the Church fairly quickly (not all of course, but in large enough numbers to make it feasible to persecute the Church). Have you read much by Ivan Bunin? The more I read, the more accurate I think his depiction of rural life in the Russian Empire was. Christianization was very superficial in many aspects, hence quickly abandoning it when it became politically expedient to do so.

I would not be surprised if a bell curve existed: 20% Bolsheviks, 60% passives, and 20% opposed/martyred.

Stalin insisted on including a question about religion, asked of everyone over 16, in the All Soviet Census of 1937, expecting that the results would show a self-identified atheist majority. He scheduled it on Christmas Eve Dec 24/Jan 6.

56.7% of those replied stated a religion, 43.2% self-identified as atheist, the rest refusing to answer. This after nearly two decades of the war on the Church. Suspicions are that many of the self-identified atheists were just dissimulating believers.

Quote

Historian V. B. Zhiromskaya stated that people expected to be persecuted if they declared themselves as belonging to a religion but considered the answer to be important: If many people would say they are religious, the authorities would have to open the churches, was a common attitude.

Stalin destroyed the results and sent the census takers to the gulag. The Soviets never asked a religion question again.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Over a decade after the events under question in the OP, a lot has changed.

Gee, do you think something new may have happened since the early 2000s?

But let's just throw the implication out there that it hasn't, which is what he did. And still I am the one who questions this, and we see what happens. Sigh...

Figures. Again, I should have known what to expect.

All right, I get it. We have always been at war with Eastasia. There is no man behind the curtain.

Happy Pascha. I'll get out of your way.

Wow what is with this dude? Legit question. Its not going to be easy to undo the damage of the communist wretches and their mindF$!@ing of the Russian population. I can see the same stuff beginning here how kids dont even know about Genesis and Christ, when I grew up it was taken for granted.

I think copies of Alexander Schmemmans "For the Life of the World" would do wonders. If that book doesnt seriously contribute to a conversion I dont know what will. Such an organic picture of salvation history and the sacraments it makes the more legalized western take seem almost perverse. But one thing they will need above all else is a heart. If you have a heart, you can be converted. Most of these people are at the state in what CS Lewis describes in 'Abolition of Man'. Basically you're nothing but a robot. You're not human because you have no heart which affects your worldview, etc... etc...

Fr. Schmemann said the highest honor he ever received was finding out that his "For the Life of the World" was being distributed by samizdat' in the Soviet Union.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In fact, it is a pity that the UGCC is Catholic, because apart from being in communion with Rome, it is just as good Orthodox Church should be: Welcoming, a strong faith but without fanatism, beautiful liturgies in the language of the people, putting a strong emphasis on education...

The problem of the allure of the Vatican....

When the curtain fell and the wolves rushed in, I stated that it should be a good thing, as pure gold fears no fire, and if there were competition maybe the shepherds would not take the flock for granted.

I don't recall your impressions about Romania. I haven't been in nearly twenty years, but then the Churches in Bucharest were full (even on weekdays) of the young, the Church had just put out a new updated translation of the Bible and Divine Liturgy, and priests teaching on TV and in school had just started.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

When we are talking about dozens of people, it is an issue. The funny thing is they'd reject you since in order to go visit them you'd need a biometric passport.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

When we are talking about dozens of people, it is an issue. The funny thing is they'd reject you since in order to go visit them you'd need a biometric passport.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

When we are talking about dozens of people, it is an issue. The funny thing is they'd reject you since in order to go visit them you'd need a biometric passport.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you ever make sense?

Must you resort to an ad-hominem? What I was pointing out is that the real version of "true Orthodoxy" in Russia is over the top and not really similar to the American variant thereof. Find every possible conspiracy theory on the planet and then some. What I meant, is that to visit Russia you would presumably need a biometric passport (unless you have a CIS internal passport); biometric passports are the 666 to them.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

When we are talking about dozens of people, it is an issue. The funny thing is they'd reject you since in order to go visit them you'd need a biometric passport.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you ever make sense?

Must you resort to an ad-hominem? What I was pointing out is that the real version of "true Orthodoxy" in Russia is over the top and not really similar to the American variant thereof. Find every possible conspiracy theory on the planet and then some. What I meant, is that to visit Russia you would presumably need a biometric passport (unless you have a CIS internal passport); biometric passports are the 666 to them.

Do you have any evidence for your ridiculous assertions? Because if you don't, my statement that you're talking nonsense stands.

Building churches alone doesn't prove much, if the churches are empty. How about statistics about church attendance, baptisms etc?

Ok, here you go Jonathan:

Percentage of Russians who attend church reaches 71% - poll

Moscow, February 27, Interfax - The number of Russians who go to temples increased considerably over the past two decades. Sociologists have found that the most frequently observed ritual is the placement of candles in. Over the past 16 years, the number of Russians who go to church, mosque, or synagogue increased ... 83% of Orthodox respondents reported going to church. 11% of the respondents said they go into churches rarely or from time to time... The poll, which was conducted in 138 populated areas in 46 regions, territories, and republics of Russia in mid-February, shows that a considerable number of people who go to temples (38%) just speak to God, 31% read prayers, 27% kiss holy relics, 33% give alms, 29% donate money to temples, and 9% go to temples to sanctify things.

You omitted the most important facts (from the article that you cited):

Over the past 16 years, the number of Russians who go to church, mosque, or synagogue increased from 57% to 71%.

That is why. It is a start for a previously Atheist country. There are lots of Christeasters (Come only for for Pascha and the Nativity) in every country. Haven't you seen the number of people at your parish at least triple for these great Feasts too?

We have 90 communicants and we average about 75 on regular Sundays. At Pascha, we have lots more people but we rarely exceed 125--may be because our space is limited.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

When we are talking about dozens of people, it is an issue. The funny thing is they'd reject you since in order to go visit them you'd need a biometric passport.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you ever make sense?

Must you resort to an ad-hominem? What I was pointing out is that the real version of "true Orthodoxy" in Russia is over the top and not really similar to the American variant thereof. Find every possible conspiracy theory on the planet and then some. What I meant, is that to visit Russia you would presumably need a biometric passport (unless you have a CIS internal passport); biometric passports are the 666 to them.

Do you have any evidence for your ridiculous assertions? Because if you don't, my statement that you're talking nonsense stands.

Jonathan--I have never observed Nektarios make an statement that he cannot back up. You may want to reconsider.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

When we are talking about dozens of people, it is an issue. The funny thing is they'd reject you since in order to go visit them you'd need a biometric passport.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you ever make sense?

Must you resort to an ad-hominem? What I was pointing out is that the real version of "true Orthodoxy" in Russia is over the top and not really similar to the American variant thereof. Find every possible conspiracy theory on the planet and then some. What I meant, is that to visit Russia you would presumably need a biometric passport (unless you have a CIS internal passport); biometric passports are the 666 to them.

Do you have any evidence for your ridiculous assertions? Because if you don't, my statement that you're talking nonsense stands.

Pan Michał was kind enough to provide links already. And actually one quick google search would have yielded the same links.

BTW, you said "do you ever make sense" which is an ad hominem at my character - "ever" means in general, not in this specific incidence.

Because if you don't, my statement that you're talking nonsense stands.

It's them who talk nonsense.

Um after running these through Google Translate all I've got is a neutral news report about the introduction of biometric identity cards. No mention of conspiracies, except an unclear reference to the concern of some Orthodox Christians about them. No indication at all that the official position of all True Orthodox groups is that these ID cards are unacceptable. Maybe that's what these guys think, but how do you know they speak for all the True Orthodox?

Is this the best you can do?

Oh yeah, and my own Synod has considered this issue with respect to the introduction of similar cards in Greece, and guess what? We don't consider it a matter of faith.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

When we are talking about dozens of people, it is an issue. The funny thing is they'd reject you since in order to go visit them you'd need a biometric passport.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you ever make sense?

Must you resort to an ad-hominem? What I was pointing out is that the real version of "true Orthodoxy" in Russia is over the top and not really similar to the American variant thereof. Find every possible conspiracy theory on the planet and then some. What I meant, is that to visit Russia you would presumably need a biometric passport (unless you have a CIS internal passport); biometric passports are the 666 to them.

Do you have any evidence for your ridiculous assertions? Because if you don't, my statement that you're talking nonsense stands.

Jonathan--I have never observed Nektarios make an statement that he cannot back up. You may want to reconsider.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

When we are talking about dozens of people, it is an issue. The funny thing is they'd reject you since in order to go visit them you'd need a biometric passport.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you ever make sense?

Must you resort to an ad-hominem? What I was pointing out is that the real version of "true Orthodoxy" in Russia is over the top and not really similar to the American variant thereof. Find every possible conspiracy theory on the planet and then some. What I meant, is that to visit Russia you would presumably need a biometric passport (unless you have a CIS internal passport); biometric passports are the 666 to them.

Do you have any evidence for your ridiculous assertions? Because if you don't, my statement that you're talking nonsense stands.

Pan Michał was kind enough to provide links already. And actually one quick google search would have yielded the same links.

BTW, you said "do you ever make sense" which is an ad hominem at my character - "ever" means in general, not in this specific incidence.

Yeah, links which prove absolutely zilch. And I'll admit, I have a poor impression of your character so far, given that you are making these nonsensical assertions with zero evidence.

If you read through the 3rm website already linked, you'll get a decent enough picture. This is typical of every opinion piece I've seen from "true" Russian churches. anti-raskol.ru is a more comprehensive source, although the bias is obvious in the name.

If you read through the 3rm website already linked, you'll get a decent enough picture. This is typical of every opinion piece I've seen from "true" Russian churches. anti-raskol.ru is a more comprehensive source, although the bias is obvious in the name.

Well I for one don't know where they give their affiliation. Could you point it out? And I'm afraid generalizing from just one example is not legitimate reasoning. Give me something from the RTOC or ROAC that's scandalous and maybe you'll have something worth discussing.

And yes, pardon me if I don't take a source called "anti-sectarian" as an unbiased source of news about True Orthodoxy.

But look at that! These are New Calendar Romanian Orthodox protesting! Looks like your theory gets weaker and weaker.

My statement was that these groups are far out there on issues across the board. Take a look at forums in Russian. Read Russian ecclesiastical news. What I said isn't controversial. Unfortunately some of this "zeal not according to knowledge" has spilled over and infected the MP and other Orthodox Churches. The difference is that a subset within the MP believe such things, and they are not presented as matters of faith. If you read the justification for schism by a lot of these groups (just google their websites, it isn't very hard), a vast Jewish conspiracy that has undermined the MP plays heavily. If this is the justification for a groups schism, then I'd say conspiracy theories have been elevated to the level of dogma.

If you read through the 3rm website already linked, you'll get a decent enough picture. This is typical of every opinion piece I've seen from "true" Russian churches. anti-raskol.ru is a more comprehensive source, although the bias is obvious in the name.

Well I for one don't know where they give their affiliation. Could you point it out? And I'm afraid generalizing from just one example is not legitimate reasoning. Give me something from the RTOC or ROAC that's scandalous and maybe you'll have something worth discussing.

And yes, pardon me if I don't take a source called "anti-sectarian" as an unbiased source of news about True Orthodoxy.

And any such source coming from someone in schism from the MP is also going to be biased. Nonetheless you are missing my point - you sent my two links to groups in the United States. I'm talking about Russia and former USSR. What I'm getting at (and what a few others have as well) is that the sanitized version of these groups that is marketed in English is nothing like the on the ground reality in the old country.

But look at that! These are New Calendar Romanian Orthodox protesting! Looks like your theory gets weaker and weaker.

My statement was that these groups are far out there on issues across the board. Take a look at forums in Russian. Read Russian ecclesiastical news. What I said isn't controversial. Unfortunately some of this "zeal not according to knowledge" has spilled over and infected the MP and other Orthodox Churches. The difference is that a subset within the MP believe such things, and they are not presented as matters of faith. If you read the justification for schism by a lot of these groups (just google their websites, it isn't very hard), a vast Jewish conspiracy that has undermined the MP plays heavily. If this is the justification for a groups schism, then I'd say conspiracy theories have been elevated to the level of dogma.

You didn't answer my question. What is the jurisdictional affiliation of this website, 3rm.info?

If you read through the 3rm website already linked, you'll get a decent enough picture. This is typical of every opinion piece I've seen from "true" Russian churches. anti-raskol.ru is a more comprehensive source, although the bias is obvious in the name.

Well I for one don't know where they give their affiliation. Could you point it out? And I'm afraid generalizing from just one example is not legitimate reasoning. Give me something from the RTOC or ROAC that's scandalous and maybe you'll have something worth discussing.

And yes, pardon me if I don't take a source called "anti-sectarian" as an unbiased source of news about True Orthodoxy.

And any such source coming from someone in schism from the MP is also going to be biased. Nonetheless you are missing my point - you sent my two links to groups in the United States. I'm talking about Russia and former USSR. What I'm getting at (and what a few others have as well) is that the sanitized version of these groups that is marketed in English is nothing like the on the ground reality in the old country.

But you just admitted the same applies to the "official" Churches. Paranoia seems to be a general feature of people in the "old country"; it's not unique to the True Orthodox.

If you read through the 3rm website already linked, you'll get a decent enough picture. This is typical of every opinion piece I've seen from "true" Russian churches. anti-raskol.ru is a more comprehensive source, although the bias is obvious in the name.

Well I for one don't know where they give their affiliation. Could you point it out? And I'm afraid generalizing from just one example is not legitimate reasoning. Give me something from the RTOC or ROAC that's scandalous and maybe you'll have something worth discussing.

And yes, pardon me if I don't take a source called "anti-sectarian" as an unbiased source of news about True Orthodoxy.

And any such source coming from someone in schism from the MP is also going to be biased. Nonetheless you are missing my point - you sent my two links to groups in the United States. I'm talking about Russia and former USSR. What I'm getting at (and what a few others have as well) is that the sanitized version of these groups that is marketed in English is nothing like the on the ground reality in the old country.

But you just admitted the same applies to the "official" Churches. Paranoia seems to be a general feature of people in the "old country"; it's not unique to the True Orthodox.

The difference is that IME, it approaches levels of 100% and is very much tied to the raison d'etre of the various true Orthodox groups. Official Orthodoxy is more representative of society in this regard. It's just a fact of life that you can't really pick up from your computer in America, sorry.

If you read through the 3rm website already linked, you'll get a decent enough picture. This is typical of every opinion piece I've seen from "true" Russian churches. anti-raskol.ru is a more comprehensive source, although the bias is obvious in the name.

Well I for one don't know where they give their affiliation. Could you point it out? And I'm afraid generalizing from just one example is not legitimate reasoning. Give me something from the RTOC or ROAC that's scandalous and maybe you'll have something worth discussing.

And yes, pardon me if I don't take a source called "anti-sectarian" as an unbiased source of news about True Orthodoxy.

And any such source coming from someone in schism from the MP is also going to be biased. Nonetheless you are missing my point - you sent my two links to groups in the United States. I'm talking about Russia and former USSR. What I'm getting at (and what a few others have as well) is that the sanitized version of these groups that is marketed in English is nothing like the on the ground reality in the old country.

But you just admitted the same applies to the "official" Churches. Paranoia seems to be a general feature of people in the "old country"; it's not unique to the True Orthodox.

The difference is that IME, it approaches levels of 100% and is very much tied to the raison d'etre of the various true Orthodox groups. Official Orthodoxy is more representative of society in this regard. It's just a fact of life that you can't really pick up from your computer in America, sorry.

Wow. Well, I guess your "estimation" is all the evidence we need. Thanks for not wasting my time.

If you read through the 3rm website already linked, you'll get a decent enough picture. This is typical of every opinion piece I've seen from "true" Russian churches. anti-raskol.ru is a more comprehensive source, although the bias is obvious in the name.

Well I for one don't know where they give their affiliation. Could you point it out? And I'm afraid generalizing from just one example is not legitimate reasoning. Give me something from the RTOC or ROAC that's scandalous and maybe you'll have something worth discussing.

And yes, pardon me if I don't take a source called "anti-sectarian" as an unbiased source of news about True Orthodoxy.

And any such source coming from someone in schism from the MP is also going to be biased. Nonetheless you are missing my point - you sent my two links to groups in the United States. I'm talking about Russia and former USSR. What I'm getting at (and what a few others have as well) is that the sanitized version of these groups that is marketed in English is nothing like the on the ground reality in the old country.

But you just admitted the same applies to the "official" Churches. Paranoia seems to be a general feature of people in the "old country"; it's not unique to the True Orthodox.

The difference is that IME, it approaches levels of 100% and is very much tied to the raison d'etre of the various true Orthodox groups. Official Orthodoxy is more representative of society in this regard. It's just a fact of life that you can't really pick up from your computer in America, sorry.

Wow. Well, I guess your "estimation" is all the evidence we need. Thanks for not wasting my time.

I've offered my opinion and never claimed it was anything more than that. On the other hand, I'm going to wager a guess that you've been to neither Russia nor Ukraine. You've already stated that you don't speak Russian. So you really have no ability to use primary sources or contextualize what you read (btw, google translate's Russian to English is terrible).

If you read through the 3rm website already linked, you'll get a decent enough picture. This is typical of every opinion piece I've seen from "true" Russian churches. anti-raskol.ru is a more comprehensive source, although the bias is obvious in the name.

Well I for one don't know where they give their affiliation. Could you point it out? And I'm afraid generalizing from just one example is not legitimate reasoning. Give me something from the RTOC or ROAC that's scandalous and maybe you'll have something worth discussing.

And yes, pardon me if I don't take a source called "anti-sectarian" as an unbiased source of news about True Orthodoxy.

And any such source coming from someone in schism from the MP is also going to be biased. Nonetheless you are missing my point - you sent my two links to groups in the United States. I'm talking about Russia and former USSR. What I'm getting at (and what a few others have as well) is that the sanitized version of these groups that is marketed in English is nothing like the on the ground reality in the old country.

But you just admitted the same applies to the "official" Churches. Paranoia seems to be a general feature of people in the "old country"; it's not unique to the True Orthodox.

The difference is that IME, it approaches levels of 100% and is very much tied to the raison d'etre of the various true Orthodox groups. Official Orthodoxy is more representative of society in this regard. It's just a fact of life that you can't really pick up from your computer in America, sorry.

Wow. Well, I guess your "estimation" is all the evidence we need. Thanks for not wasting my time.

I've offered my opinion and never claimed it was anything more than that. On the other hand, I'm going to wager a guess that you've been to neither Russia nor Ukraine. You've already stated that you don't speak Russian. So you really have no ability to use primary sources or contextualize what you read (btw, google translate's Russian to English is terrible).

You are libeling the True Orthodox Church. You offer your worthless "opinions" based on no substantial evidence, and then you expect to be treated with respect. All I can say is that I would not extrapolate from your behavior anything about the "World Orthodox" in general.

Of course, the faithful should always expect to be slandered, so what you say is not surprising.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

When we are talking about dozens of people, it is an issue. The funny thing is they'd reject you since in order to go visit them you'd need a biometric passport.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you ever make sense?

Must you resort to an ad-hominem? What I was pointing out is that the real version of "true Orthodoxy" in Russia is over the top and not really similar to the American variant thereof. Find every possible conspiracy theory on the planet and then some. What I meant, is that to visit Russia you would presumably need a biometric passport (unless you have a CIS internal passport); biometric passports are the 666 to them.

Do you have any evidence for your ridiculous assertions? Because if you don't, my statement that you're talking nonsense stands.

Pan Michał was kind enough to provide links already. And actually one quick google search would have yielded the same links.

BTW, you said "do you ever make sense" which is an ad hominem at my character - "ever" means in general, not in this specific incidence.

Yeah, links which prove absolutely zilch. And I'll admit, I have a poor impression of your character so far, given that you are making these nonsensical assertions with zero evidence.

But look at that! These are New Calendar Romanian Orthodox protesting! Looks like your theory gets weaker and weaker.

Jonathan--May I give an informal warning here, as I am not this section's moderator and I have also engaged in the discussion with you. It is simply this: you are getting mighty close to crossing the line into ad hominem territory, which is prohibited by the rules. Second Chance

Over a decade after the events under question in the OP, a lot has changed.

Gee, do you think something new may have happened since the early 2000s?

But let's just throw the implication out there that it hasn't, which is what he did. And still I am the one who questions this, and we see what happens. Sigh...

Figures. Again, I should have known what to expect.

All right, I get it. We have always been at war with Eastasia. There is no man behind the curtain.

Happy Pascha. I'll get out of your way.

Wow what is with this dude? Legit question. Its not going to be easy to undo the damage of the communist wretches and their mindF$!@ing of the Russian population. I can see the same stuff beginning here how kids dont even know about Genesis and Christ, when I grew up it was taken for granted.

I think copies of Alexander Schmemmans "For the Life of the World" would do wonders. If that book doesnt seriously contribute to a conversion I dont know what will. Such an organic picture of salvation history and the sacraments it makes the more legalized western take seem almost perverse. But one thing they will need above all else is a heart. If you have a heart, you can be converted. Most of these people are at the state in what CS Lewis describes in 'Abolition of Man'. Basically you're nothing but a robot. You're not human because you have no heart which affects your worldview, etc... etc...

Fr. Schmemann said the highest honor he ever received was finding out that his "For the Life of the World" was being distributed by samizdat' in the Soviet Union.

Ha! Thats good stuff! Its so simple and so awesome. I can thank this forum for leading me to that book.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

Firstly, what's the relevance of being tiny? Secondly, far out in what way? On every issue? Including shaken or stirred?

When we are talking about dozens of people, it is an issue. The funny thing is they'd reject you since in order to go visit them you'd need a biometric passport.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you ever make sense?

Must you resort to an ad-hominem? What I was pointing out is that the real version of "true Orthodoxy" in Russia is over the top and not really similar to the American variant thereof. Find every possible conspiracy theory on the planet and then some. What I meant, is that to visit Russia you would presumably need a biometric passport (unless you have a CIS internal passport); biometric passports are the 666 to them.

Do you have any evidence for your ridiculous assertions? Because if you don't, my statement that you're talking nonsense stands.

Pan Michał was kind enough to provide links already. And actually one quick google search would have yielded the same links.

BTW, you said "do you ever make sense" which is an ad hominem at my character - "ever" means in general, not in this specific incidence.

Yeah, links which prove absolutely zilch. And I'll admit, I have a poor impression of your character so far, given that you are making these nonsensical assertions with zero evidence.

But look at that! These are New Calendar Romanian Orthodox protesting! Looks like your theory gets weaker and weaker.

Jonathan--May I give an informal warning here, as I am not this section's moderator and I have also engaged in the discussion with you. It is simply this: you are getting mighty close to crossing the line into ad hominem territory, which is prohibited by the rules. Second Chance

I admit I don't know anything about them. I have no idea who they represent. As I pointed out above, they seem to be affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate, since they have a section concerning "official church positions" which consist of statements and publications by the Moscow Patriarchate. But if you can show evidence that they are in fact affiliated with a True Orthodox jurisdiction then I'll accept that.

Let's say that they are True Orthodox. Would they be representative of the whole of True Orthodoxy? Not necessarily. So far I've heard assertions about the True Orthodox that they are all crazy, but when pressed for evidence all I get are pages from this dubious website, and then claims that these impressions are founded upon certain generalistic impressions which can't be justified by evidence available online. But what are these impressions based on? Has Nectarios met with True Orthodox or catacomb Christians? Or has he just read second-hand reports on sites like anti-raskol, or from talking with people in the official Church?

I'm quite happy to disclose that I don't have first-hand acquaintance with True Orthodox people in Russia, and only slight acquaintance with those from Greece. My experience is mostly based on what I know from them in America, although many of them are first-generation immigrants from the old country. Have I encountered paranoid or conspiratorial thinking? Definitely. But these are not "official" positions. It's not a matter of faith to believe that the earth is the center of the universe or that the world is controlled by a hidden Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.

FWIW, I find that the Orthodoxy you find on the internet is more extreme and laden with paranoid thinking than what you would encounter in real life. The people I know from church, both in the Greek and Russian True Orthodox churches, are mainly characterized by normality (to the extent that any fallen being can be considered normal). Sure, those are my subjective impressions, and Nectarios is entitled to his subjective impressions, but I think that if you're going to say bad things about other people, as he is doing about the True Orthodox in Russia, you should at least have something better to support your case than what he has offered so far.

Kyiv, March 13 (Interfax-Ukraine) – An overwhelming majority of citizens in the central and southeastern parts of Ukraine describe themselves as Christians, according to the results of the poll held by Research&BrandingGroup and announced by its founder Yevhen Kopatko.

Kopatko said at a press conference at Interfax on Monday that 84% of those polled consider themselves to be Orthodox believers, while 3% said they are Christians but do not belong to a definite denomination, 2% are Protestants (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, Adventism and Baptism), 3% named other religions, 3% were undecided, 4% said they are atheists and 1% found it difficult to answer....

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

I think you have misread certain statements. It is not a matter of being sympathetic to the MP, but an understanding of what the Russian Church had to face after the fall of communism. After 40 years of atheistic rule ,the people have to be re-educated. This is not a simple task. The very fact that churches, monasteries, seminaries and church schools have either been returned to the Russian Church or have been built is a major step. My major issue is the fact that schismatic groups have arisen, refuse to repent, have caused confusion with the people, and are blatantly judgemental. The MP is facing many issues, striving to cope with certain religious groups outside of Russia and evangelizing the Russians, and also the growing Muslim population. Disunity in the Orthodox Church is counterproductive. All one has to do is look at the chaos in the Ukraine. One must never forget the past, but it is important to face the future as brothers and sisters in Christ.[/quote]

Kyiv, March 13 (Interfax-Ukraine) – An overwhelming majority of citizens in the central and southeastern parts of Ukraine describe themselves as Christians, according to the results of the poll held by Research&BrandingGroup and announced by its founder Yevhen Kopatko.

Kopatko said at a press conference at Interfax on Monday that 84% of those polled consider themselves to be Orthodox believers, while 3% said they are Christians but do not belong to a definite denomination, 2% are Protestants (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, Adventism and Baptism), 3% named other religions, 3% were undecided, 4% said they are atheists and 1% found it difficult to answer....

(The bad news comes after what I quoted)

But, even in the "bad news" there are nuggets of good news. Let me go ahead and quote those "bad news" first:

'Among the respondents only 12% regularly go to church, and observe their religion's ceremonies and rituals. Fifty-one percent of those polled believe in God, but go to church only on holidays and do not observe all of their religion's ceremonies and rituals; 27% think God exists, but are little interested in church life; 4% say they are staunch atheists; 8% did not think about it and 1% found it difficult to answer.

For 42% of the respondents religion is a national tradition, 32% said it represents the observance of moral rules, 24% said it was personal salvation, 17% said it was a part of world culture, 13% said it meant keeping to religious rituals and 4% found it difficult to answer.

At the same time in general 67% of citizens of central and southeast Ukraine trust the church, 21% do not and 12% found it difficult to answer."

Here are the good news that I am gleaning from the above: - 12% regular church attendance is 2-3 times what he polls have shown in Russia. - Only 4% are staunch atheists.- There seems to be a cultural shift in favor of religion as indicated by penultimate paragraph.- 67% trust the Church.

The bad indicator is that only 24% indicated a specific Christian reason for religion but this could be a reaction to the wording of the question (personal salvation) that may have Protestant connotations.

All in all, I am encouraged by this poll. Nothing to crow about but a solid turn-around from the Communist era.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

I think you have misread certain statements. It is not a matter of being sympathetic to the MP, but an understanding of what the Russian Church had to face after the fall of communism. After 40 years of atheistic rule ,the people have to be re-educated. This is not a simple task. The very fact that churches, monasteries, seminaries and church schools have either been returned to the Russian Church or have been built is a major step. My major issue is the fact that schismatic groups have arisen, refuse to repent, have caused confusion with the people, and are blatantly judgemental. The MP is facing many issues, striving to cope with certain religious groups outside of Russia and evangelizing the Russians, and also the growing Muslim population. Disunity in the Orthodox Church is counterproductive. All one has to do is look at the chaos in the Ukraine. One must never forget the past, but it is important to face the future as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Perhaps I misread it, in which case I apologize. I'm not sure I really agree with the analysis, however. It is true, on the one hand, that the State actively discouraged church membership and attendance during the communist years for the majority of the population, but those few who did seek careers in the church were able to live comfortable lives, provided that they were completely compliant with respect to communist ideology. It's this last feature which is the problem that the Catacomb Church, and the Russian Church Abroad, had with respect to communion with the MP. Yes, I know there were dissidents in the official Church, and I respect their bravery, although they were still working from within an essentially corrupted and false institution (Met St Philaret of New York has a valuable commentary on the late Fr Dimitri Dudko that I can try to find for you).

Even leaving that aside, what is the point that the Economist article was making? From their purely secular point of view, they nevertheless reasonably noted that, given the vast amount of resources the MP had from the State, they should have been able to expand membership much faster by that point (2000) than they actually did. Now, what exactly is the situation now? That is disputed, but the statistics we've seen so far are not that impressive, and certainly don't support some of the fevered pronouncements made by some MP apologists that the whole of Russia is returning en masse to Orthodox piety. Again, given the enormous resources the state church in Russia has, the less than impressive performance seems strong evidence of a leftover Soviet mentality pervading the upper hierarchy of the MP. These are bishops who were trained in Soviet times, when the purpose of the church was not seen as active evangelization of souls, but as serving certain ritualistic needs for a small number of people, and otherwise as acting as a mouthpiece for Soviet foreign policy in the World Council of Churches.

I think you also need to consider the actual facts of how these "schismatic" groups arose. The True Orthodox or Catacomb Church simply consist of those who refused to accept Met Sergius' Declaration of 1927, in which he identified the joys and sufferings of the Church with that of the communist state, which was and is a theological falsehood. Can you blame the faithful for refusing to accept this? The consequence of refusing to accept the declaration was, of course, that the "official" Church of Met Sergius declared them to be schismatic. But given that the grounds for this excommunication was the refusal to confess a lie, who do you really think is the guilty party here?

There is no doubt that the Russian Orthodox Church is doing a great deal to spread the faith. Of course, that does not mean that Russia has now been transformed into a society of saints, but such a society has never existed. While certain polls exist regarding church attendance, the success of such missionary labors is found in the salvation of souls, and this is not something that can be captured by polls and quantifiable metrics.

While it is true that the building of churches alone is not a sufficient indicator of the Church’s efforts to spread the faith, neither can the building of churches be dismissed as irrelevant. While spreading the faith must certainly go beyond the building of churches, the building of such churches is nevertheless essential to the spreading of the faith.

Along with the building of churches, we have also witnessed the repopulation of numerous monasteries, we have heard of the labors of Orthodox missionaries in Russia, of those missionary priests who attach small chapels to boats and trailors and travel far and wide to minister to those in remote places, of the thousands of people who travel across the country to venerate miracle working icons and other relics, of Patriarch Kirill giving talks on the faith to stadiums full of youth answer diligently answering their questions, of the Patriarch’s sermons given at concerts and other unconventional venues, of his calls for the clergy to go out of their churches to meet and minister to people where they are, of his homilies and talks on the Orthodox faith that are broadcasted on public television, of the Church’s efforts to have courses on the Orthodox faith incorporated into the public school curricula, etc.

Again, one could always argue that more should be done, and one can always claim that people are not responding to these efforts as one would hope, but nevertheless it is clear that the Russian Orthodox Church is doing a lot to spread the faith. Before one criticizes such efforts, they should look to themselves and ask how much they are doing to spread the faith by comparison.

Below are a few quotes from various articles regarding this subject:

Patriarch Kirill on the mission of the church, and that building churches isn’t enough

Quote

The Orthodox Church has come around to the importance of missionary work in Russia in recent years. Zolotov says it is a trend that has been especially evident under the new patriarch, Kirill, who has led the church for less than a year.

“In the last several years, missionary work has been increasingly recognized as a top priority, or one of the top priorities," Zolotov says. "Basically, the election of Patriarch Kirill to a large extent was the manifestation of this recognition that we need to carry out a mission. It is not enough to just be reconstructing the church or sit there saying how important we are for Russian history.”

On the second anniversary of Patriarch Kirill’s enthronement, Fr. Vsevolod Chaplin stated:

Quote

"the Church life becomes really animated under the current Patriarch and all barriers which prevented proactive people from being involved in it are removed," he noted.

Patriarch Kirill calls for a “second Christianization” of Russia:

Quote

Moscow, November 16, Interfax - Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia urged believers to establish a consistent and efficient Church mission which will produce a revolution in the mind of Russian people.

"What is happening in the Church now may be called the "second Christianization." This country with a thousand years of Christian tradition, which gave birth to many saints and deserved the name of Holy Rus, has denied its historic heritage and ruined the tradition," the Patriarch said Tuesday at an opening ceremony of the Fourth All-Church Congress of Diocesan Missionaries in Moscow.

According to him, "a new generation has grown on the spiritual ruins of the Orthodoxy" and it's impossible today "to preach Christ just by appealing to the tradition and inherited memory, we need to make specific missionary efforts."

He emphasized that the Church's goal is to make an impact on people; this goal is comparable to the one pursued by the revolutionaries (with the opposite sign); the goal is to "restructure the Orthodox tradition."

"What huge resources were spent, what kind of organization was established! Today, we need even more powerful organization with a greater potential, challenge, courage and sacrifice," the Patriarch said.

Patriarch Kirril has organized mass gatherings in stadiums specifically to address the youth and respond to their questions:

Quote

MOSCOW, May 19 (RIA Novosti) - Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, will break new ground this month by attending mass gatherings with young people at sports arenas in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Church spokesman archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin told journalists on Tuesday that the patriarch would for the first time address thousands of young people and answer their questions, with events in Moscow on Saturday and in St. Petersburg on May 29.

-SNIP-

Patriarch Kirill has also urged priests to reach out to society, especially to young people.

Speaking earlier this year during a visit to the Tula Region, south of Moscow, Patriarch Kirill said that if a priest merely "rings the bells, sits and waits for believers to arrive" then the Church will not meet people's demands, which he said included improving the moral climate in society, as well as reducing the number of divorces, abortions and crimes.

"The Lord said: 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.' He did not say: 'Sit there and wait until people arrive,'" he said. "I think today the main object of our efforts should be schools, education and youth."

The Patriarch gave a sermon at a rock concert, which was followed by these words from Met Hilarion of Volokalamsk:

Quote

Today Church and society is in fact one and the same thing. Our church believers go to discos and rock-concerts, and if there’s a chance to give some church tinge to such youth meetings and punches, if young people are glad to hear a few words from a priest, why doesn’t he go there and say these few words?” Bishop Hilarion said on Friday at Interfax press conference.

-SNIP-

“Model of such Patriarch will surely inspire bishops, priests and laymen. This missionary dimension of our church activity will be intensified thanks to His Holiness Kirill’s personality,” the bishop promised.

According to him, “every responsible church worker and priest should have inner feeling that will prompt him where he can go where better not.”

“When we speak about very notion of mission, we mean that we will go and preach, not that people will come to us. We mean that priests should come out from their churches, officials of church departments should step out of their organizations. We should go and meet people, even at the so-called youth hangouts even if it’s not usual to see a man in cassock there,” the Russian Church official said.

I hope the above is genuinely indicative of a rebirth of piety. Of course, even if true, there would still be the problem of the dubious dogmatic positions of the official Russian Church vis-a-vis their continued membership of the WCC, or their refusal to completely and explicitly repudiate the declaration of Met Sergius and its spiritual legacy of obedience to atheist communism. After all, one can find evidence of increase in piety and evangelization among heterodox groups: look at the spread of the Catholic and various Protestant churches in Africa. Does that mean those groups possess the truth, because we can see them winning over souls? I interpret all these phenomena as laying the foundations for a potential return to true Orthodoxy on the part of all these people, whether in Russia, Africa or elsewhere. We can't mistake the foundations for the actual return to the truth, but we can hope it will lead there.

I admit I don't know anything about them. I have no idea who they represent. As I pointed out above, they seem to be affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate, since they have a section concerning "official church positions" which consist of statements and publications by the Moscow Patriarchate. But if you can show evidence that they are in fact affiliated with a True Orthodox jurisdiction then I'll accept that.

They declare themselves as "MP parishioners" who stopped commemorating heretical bishops like Patriarch Cyrill". I have no idea what that means and I doubt they know. Such groups ususally do not clearly state their affiliation because they spread info from many, sometimes inconsistent, sources.

Quote

Let's say that they are True Orthodox. Would they be representative of the whole of True Orthodoxy? Not necessarily. So far I've heard assertions about the True Orthodox that they are all crazy, but when pressed for evidence all I get are pages from this dubious website, and then claims that these impressions are founded upon certain generalistic impressions which can't be justified by evidence available online. But what are these impressions based on? Has Nectarios met with True Orthodox or catacomb Christians? Or has he just read second-hand reports on sites like anti-raskol, or from talking with people in the official Church?

Each and every "true Orthodox" (isn't that a tautology?) websites tend to write things about passports, Jews, masons, false greenhouse effect, world government etc.

Quote

Have I encountered paranoid or conspiratorial thinking? Definitely. But these are not "official" positions. It's not a matter of faith to believe that the earth is the center of the universe or that the world is controlled by a hidden Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I hope the above is genuinely indicative of a rebirth of piety. Of course, even if true, there would still be the problem of the dubious dogmatic positions of the official Russian Church vis-a-vis their continued membership of the WCC, or their refusal to completely and explicitly repudiate the declaration of Met Sergius and its spiritual legacy of obedience to atheist communism.

Your problem, not the PoM/ROC's.

IIRC, we've gone over this. Atheist communism was sponsored by the spiritual legacy of obedience to Czar Peter's "Spiritual Regulation." Have you repudiated that?

After all, one can find evidence of increase in piety and evangelization among heterodox groups: look at the spread of the Catholic and various Protestant churches in Africa. Does that mean those groups possess the truth, because we can see them winning over souls? I interpret all these phenomena as laying the foundations for a potential return to true Orthodoxy on the part of all these people, whether in Russia, Africa or elsewhere. We can't mistake the foundations for the actual return to the truth, but we can hope it will lead there.

and what are we to make that while World Orthodoxy continues to unify, "True Orthodoxy" continues to splinter?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I hope the above is genuinely indicative of a rebirth of piety. Of course, even if true, there would still be the problem of the dubious dogmatic positions of the official Russian Church vis-a-vis their continued membership of the WCC, or their refusal to completely and explicitly repudiate the declaration of Met Sergius and its spiritual legacy of obedience to atheist communism.

Your problem, not the PoM/ROC's.

IIRC, we've gone over this. Atheist communism was sponsored by the spiritual legacy of obedience to Czar Peter's "Spiritual Regulation." Have you repudiated that?

After all, one can find evidence of increase in piety and evangelization among heterodox groups: look at the spread of the Catholic and various Protestant churches in Africa. Does that mean those groups possess the truth, because we can see them winning over souls? I interpret all these phenomena as laying the foundations for a potential return to true Orthodoxy on the part of all these people, whether in Russia, Africa or elsewhere. We can't mistake the foundations for the actual return to the truth, but we can hope it will lead there.

and what are we to make that while World Orthodoxy continues to unify, "True Orthodoxy" continues to splinter?

Is the MP still a part of the WCC?

Could the formation of a world-wide New Order Church be part of the WCC/MP agenda? Does the MP still consider itself to be the Third Rome (replacing the EP)?

What about that recently published novel [2011]: Russian Sunrise by Bruce W. Walters, M.D., which urges the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? This novel is a blueprint for Russia to lead the way toward unity with Rome, and just after that publication, the MP apparently re-established rapport with the Vatican.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

I hope the above is genuinely indicative of a rebirth of piety. Of course, even if true, there would still be the problem of the dubious dogmatic positions of the official Russian Church vis-a-vis their continued membership of the WCC,

Please explain what is dubious about the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Non-Orthodox:

What is unclear here about this official rejection of the “Branch Theory” by the Russian Orthodox Church?:

Quote

2.3. Nevertheless, while recognizing the need to restore our broken Christian unity, the Orthodox Church asserts that genuine unity is possible only in the bosom of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All other “models” of unity seem to us to be unacceptable.

2.4. The Orthodox Church cannot accept the assumption that despite the historical divisions, the fundamental and profound unity of Christians has not been broken and that the Church should be understood as coextensive with the entire “Christian world”, that Christian unity exists across denominational barriers and that the disunity of the churches belongs exclusively to the imperfect level of human relations. According to this conception, the Church remains one, but this oneness is not, as it were, sufficiently manifest in visible form. In this model of unity, the task of Christians is understood not as the restoration of a lost unity but as the manifestation of an existing unity. This model repeats the teaching on “the invisible Church” which appeared during the Reformation.

2.5. The so-called “branch theory”, which is connected with the conception referred to above and asserts the normal and even providential nature of Christianity existing in the form of particular “branches”, is also totally unacceptable.

2.6. Orthodoxy cannot accept that Christian divisions are caused by the inevitable imperfections of Christian history and that they exist only on the historical surface and can be healed or overcome by compromises between denominations.

2.7. The Orthodox Church cannot recognize “the equality of the denominations”. Those who have fallen away from the Church cannot re-unite with her in their present state. The existing dogmatic differences should be overcome, not simply bypassed, and this means that the way to unity lies through repentance, conversion and renewal.

Above is just a brief excerpt, but please read beyond this and tell us what is dogmatically incorrect about this statement.

Then tell us what you find objectionable about the ROC’s rejection of joint prayer with the non-Orthodox:

Quote

Moscow, May 12, Interfax - The Russian Church has once again reassured that it thinks impossible for the Orthodox believers to conduct services together with members of other Christian confessions.

"We would like once again to confirm our intention to refrain from participating in communal prayers with unorthodox believers," said a member of the secretary for interchristian relations of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Priest Alexander Vasyutin to Interfax-Religion. http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=4661

In 2006, before being elected Patriarch, Met Kirill clearly explained why the ROC believed it necessary to continue as members of the WCC. Among other things, Met Kirill stated that if Christendom does not hear the voice of the Russian Church ‘it will hear other voices’, and I’m sure you will agree that it is best if Constantinople is not left as the sole voice of Orthodoxy at such a venue. It is not membership in the WCC that is inherently problematic, but what one does in this capacity. If there are no joint prayers, and no compromises in matters of faith, then there are no “dubious dogmatic positions”.

or their refusal to completely and explicitly repudiate the declaration of Met Sergius and its spiritual legacy of obedience to atheist communism.

Even as early as 1990, the Synod of the Moscow Patriarch stated:

Quote

“We do not at all feel bound by the Declaration of 1927, which remainsfor us a marker of that tragic epoch in the history of our Fatherland.We do not at all idealize this document, recognizing also its coercednature. “

Patriarch Alexis II then stated in 1991:

Quote

"The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, of course, cannot beconsidered voluntary, for, while sustaining terrible pressure, he wasto state things that were far from the truth in order to save people'slives. Today we can say that there are lies mixed into hisDeclaration. The Declaration does not place the Church into a correctrelationship with the state, in fact, the opposite, it destroys thedistance that in a democratic society, must exist between Church andstate."

So, we see that even in 1990, the Moscow Patriarchate spoke of the1927 Declaration and the period under Communism as “that tragic epochin the history of our Fatherland”. They did not praise Met Sergiusfor his Declaration, but recognized it as the result of coercion andin no way expressing the free and authentic voice of the RussianOrthodox Church.

Also in 1991, Patriach Alexis II said the following regarding this“tragic epoch” in an interview published in "Izvestia" (No 137, June10):

Quote

"Being a person of the Church, I must take on myself responsibilityfor all that occurred in the life of my Church: not only for the good,but also for the difficult, the sorrowful, the erroneous."

"Today we can say that falsehood is interspersed in [Met Sergius']Declaration, which stated as its goal 'placing the Church into properrelations with the Soviet government.' But these relations--and in theDeclaration they are clearly defined as the submission of the Churchto the interests of governmental politics--are exactly those which areincorrect from the point of view of the Church."

In the same interview, regarding the statements and activities of theMoscow Patriarchate duringthe time of subjection to the atheist regime, Patriarch Alexis II confessed:

Quote

"Of people, then, to whom these compromises, silence, forced passivityor expressions of loyalty that were permitted by the Church leadershipin those days, have caused pain -- of these people, not only beforeGod, but also before them, I ask forgiveness, understanding, andprayers."

After the enthronement of Patriarch Alexis II, he got down on hisknees at the first Forgiveness Vespers after his enthronement at thebeginning of Great Lent and asked forgiveness for sins committedduring the Soviet period.

In 1995 (as recorded in the periodical “Alive in Christ”) PatriarchAlexis II announced at the laying of the cornerstone for Christ theSavior Cathedral, which was built to atone for the sins of the Russianpeople in turning away from God:

Quote

"Having rebelled against God, condemned the sacred memory of ourancestors, and without the least scruples of conscience destroyed thelabors of the best sons and daughters of our people, we have coveredRussian history with the stain of terrible iniquity. This stainweighs on our conscience, and casts a pall on the spiritual life ofour society."

At the laying of the cornerstone of the same Cathedral, Moscow's mayorYuri Luzhkov added:

Quote

"Let the reconstruction of the main cathedral stand as symbolic proofof hundreds of destroyed churches and millions of lost lives".

In 2004, Met Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad (now PatriarchKirill), who at that time was the chairman of the Dept for ExternalRelations, stated the following in a formal report to the Holy Synodof the MP concerning dialogue with ROCOR and the 2000 document “TheBasic Social Concept”:

Quote

“[Our] Church freely and without any coercion has described the normsof church-state relations, founded upon the word of God and thewitness of many centuries of Church Tradition, including, in part, theexperience of the New Martyrs garnered by the Church in the era ofpersecution at the hands of the totalitarian godless regime. Manyspoke of the historical significance of the 'Basic Social Concept ofthe Russian Orthodox Church' when this document was first adopted bythe 2000 Millennial Hierarchal Synod. Later it became clear: thesignificance of the 'Basic Social Concept' is also in that thisexpression of the Church's teachings opened new opportunities forrapprochement with the Church Abroad. "The Church", states the thirdchapter of the document, "preserves loyalty to the state, but abovethat requirement of loyalty is the law of God. If the state forcesOrthodox believers to apostasize from Christ and His Church and alsotowards sinful acts detrimental to the soul, the Church must refuseobedience to the state."

“The free voice of the Church, heard especially clearly in thisConciliar document, gives us the opportunity to see the 'Declaration'in a new light. While completely understanding that the path ofrelations with the state chosen in 1927 was based on the desire topreserve the possibility of the legal existence of the Church, theHierarchal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church decreed that thiscourse did not accord with the true norms of church-state relations.The epoch of the imprisonment of the Church has come to an end. Inthis way, the problem in our relations with the Church Abroad—whichlasted for many years— as for all intents and purposes removed. Thiswas essentially recognized by the Hierarchal Synod of the RussianOrthodox Church Outside of Russia in 2000. During the recent talks, itbecame very clear that the chapter 'Church and State' in the 'BasicSocial Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church' is seen by both sidesas a faithful reflection of church teachings. Declarationscontradicting these norms, made by the church authorities on bothsides made in the past, under external conditions that were extremelyinhospitable to the Church, cannot in any way be seen by us as actionshaving any validity for the Church.

Does the above not repudiate “Sergianism”? Does the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors, the 2000 document on Church and State relations, the declaration of the Soviet period as a “tragic epoch” in the life of the Church, and the dismissal of the 1927 Declaration of Met Sergius not constitute a “repudiation” of Sergianism?

In 2006, prior to the reunification, Fr. Andrew Phillips of ROCOR hadthis to say regarding the repentance of the MP:

Quote

"Thirdly, we shall always rejoice when members of the MoscowPatriarchate venerate icons of the New Martyrs, when they celebrateour services to the New Martyrs, when they dedicate churches to them.Our hearts rejoice when we see tears of repentance, running down ourown faces, faces in the Moscow Patriarchate, everywhere. In his lastsermon, like a Testament to the whole of the Russian Diaspora, thegreat Metropolitan Antony expressed the thought that: `Only tears ofrepentance can return our crucified homeland to us' (Letters ofMetropolitan Antony, Jordanville 1988, p.124). How can we not rejoice,when Saul becomes Paul, when former persecutors become zealous for theFaith?"

Also prior to the reunification of ROCOR and the MP, Fr. Andrew saidthe following regarding the work of the joint commissions that wereestablished to discuss obstacles to reunification:

Quote

"Yesterday's publication of documents detailing the agreements onformer points of discord between the Moscow Patriarchate and theRussian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) is a historic event. Itreflects the repentance of those who only ten years ago still rejectedand even scorned the central positions of the Church Outside Russia onthe New Martyrs and Confessors, Sergianism and Ecumenism. It reflectsthe will of the Patriarchate to reunite with the historic path ofTruth of the whole Russian Church, faithfully adhered to by ROCOR, andthe will of ROCOR to recognize this. It now remains for all concernedto agree on the Act on Canonical Communion in 2006."

The above quote is taken from Fr. Andrew’s article entitled “TheTriumph of Repentance and theVindication of Church Truth". In an article entitled "THERE IS NOVICTORY WITHOUT REPENTANCE", Fr. Andrew writes concerning thereunification:

Quote

"The recent events in Moscow mark the triumph of Orthodoxy. However,we should not think that they mark the triumph of Orthodox, ratherthey mark the triumph of the repentance of Orthodox. For there is notriumph of Orthodoxy without the repentance of Orthodox, no victorywithout repentance. Only the mystery of repentance brings victory oversin.

"We cannot but help remember the situation of the Russian OrthodoxChurch Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Russian Orthodox Church insideRussia (MP), even only two or three years ago. Then, as ever, theChurch Outside Russia was a persecuted and despised minority, livingin poverty and isolation. Further back, when the New Martyrs andConfessors were canonized in 1981, we recall how we were vilified inthe world media, whether Orthodox or secular.

"All those self-created enemies of ROCOR, if not now passed on, havenow repented or are repenting for their past attitudes towards us.Even those modernists who, flown in from the West, only last Januarywere lobbying in Moscow against our common unity, are having torethink their positions, as their houses, founded on sand, are washedaway from beneath them by the floodwaters of repentance. Our ROCORpositions on dying Ecumenism, on dying Renovationism and on deadSergianism, have now been adopted all through the Patriarchal Churchand are listened to widely in other Local Churches. Only those who areprisoners of the past even think about such death-bringing matters."

The last sentence above is of particular significance for those whohave rejected the reunification. Fr. Andrew fully accepted thereunification and sees it for what it is, the fruit of the repentanceof the MP for the compromises of the Soviet era, the most importantexpression of which was the glorification of the New Martyrs andConfessors.

For those who rejected this reunification and continue to speak against the MP, Fr. Andrew offered the following words in the same article:

Quote

"To those few individuals who could not repent for theirquasi-Protestant, sectarian attitudes, who did not want to see theunity of the Russian Church and in 2006 left the Patriarchate ofMoscow for the Patriarchate of Constantinople, or in 2007 left ROCORfor some sect or other, we say, you are welcome to return. We allmake mistakes. The doors are not shut to you to return. Indeed, weshall rejoice together with you, if you do so.

"Once past the initial euphoria of your decision to leave, theeuphoria that is always created in little groups when you break away,you may wish to return. After the self-congratulatory excitement ofdefensive self-justification, you will feel depressed, isolated andabandoned in your sects. This is the normal psychological process,created by the evil one, who casts us from one emotional extreme toanother, from euphoria to despondency. When that time comes, rememberthese words, and remember that you are welcome to return. Your returnis your act of repentance and, automatically, our act of mutualforgiveness for anything that was done or said in the past."

The fact is, the Russian Orthodox Church has officially repudiated syncretistic and heretical Ecumenism, has repudiated Sergianism; has glorified the New Martyrs and Confessors; and has dedicated much blood, sweat, money, and tears to the strengthening of the faith in Russia. It is unfortunate that there are still some who have never experienced church life in Russia under Soviet times, who have never experienced persecution, who have no understanding of what the hierarchs and clergy endured to spread the faith under these circumstances or to what extent there was any “compromise” – it is unfortunate to see such people reject hundreds of bishops in Russia and all who are under their care even while the entire Orthodox world recognizes them as Orthodox and true hierarchs of the Church.

They declare themselves as "MP parishioners" who stopped commemorating heretical bishops like Patriarch Cyrill". I have no idea what that means and I doubt they know. Such groups ususally do not clearly state their affiliation because they spread info from many, sometimes inconsistent, sources.

OK, well if they are self-avowed MP parishioners, they do not identify with the True Orthodox, so they aren't representative. It sounds like they may be involved with the Diomid schism. Contrast them with the website of the RTOC that I linked to earlier. They are not afraid to be forthcoming about their history and origins.

Quote

Each and every "true Orthodox" (isn't that a tautology?) websites tend to write things about passports, Jews, masons, false greenhouse effect, world government etc.

No more tautologous than "Orthodox Christian". If you are a true Christian, you by definition have the true faith, and therefore the label "Orthodox" is superfluous. Of course, in practicality it's not superfluous, because the existence of heretics who call themselves "Christian" necessitates the label Orthodox to distinguish the right-believing Christians. Likewise, the existence of those who call themselves Orthodox, even if they espouse ecumenism or sergianism, necessitates the label "True" to distinguish those Orthodox who reject ecumenism and sergianism.

And (again) I challenge your assertion that "every" website writes these things. Not that I'm expecting you ever to back up your libels with evidence.

Quote

Don't you find it suspicious?

No. Do you reject the New Calendar Church because Elder Paisios made false prophesies?

I hope the above is genuinely indicative of a rebirth of piety. Of course, even if true, there would still be the problem of the dubious dogmatic positions of the official Russian Church vis-a-vis their continued membership of the WCC, or their refusal to completely and explicitly repudiate the declaration of Met Sergius and its spiritual legacy of obedience to atheist communism.

Your problem, not the PoM/ROC's.

IIRC, we've gone over this. Atheist communism was sponsored by the spiritual legacy of obedience to Czar Peter's "Spiritual Regulation." Have you repudiated that?

After all, one can find evidence of increase in piety and evangelization among heterodox groups: look at the spread of the Catholic and various Protestant churches in Africa. Does that mean those groups possess the truth, because we can see them winning over souls? I interpret all these phenomena as laying the foundations for a potential return to true Orthodoxy on the part of all these people, whether in Russia, Africa or elsewhere. We can't mistake the foundations for the actual return to the truth, but we can hope it will lead there.

and what are we to make that while World Orthodoxy continues to unify, "True Orthodoxy" continues to splinter?

Maybe we did go over it. Tsar Peter's spiritual regulation was canonically egregious; it did not touch on matters of faith. The declaration of Sergius did. And yes, the spiritual regulation was abrogated by the restoration of the Patriarchate in 1917.

True Orthodoxy continues to splinter? Hm, well a year ago HOTCA was confined to the eastern US, but now we have bishops across the whole country, owing the unification with Met Moses of Portland. But sure, you can call that splintering.

World Orthodox continues to unify? Last time I checked, the MP and the EP were still bickering over Estonia, and the Serbs still don't recognize Macedonian autocephaly.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I hope the above is genuinely indicative of a rebirth of piety. Of course, even if true, there would still be the problem of the dubious dogmatic positions of the official Russian Church vis-a-vis their continued membership of the WCC, or their refusal to completely and explicitly repudiate the declaration of Met Sergius and its spiritual legacy of obedience to atheist communism.

Your problem, not the PoM/ROC's.

IIRC, we've gone over this. Atheist communism was sponsored by the spiritual legacy of obedience to Czar Peter's "Spiritual Regulation." Have you repudiated that?

After all, one can find evidence of increase in piety and evangelization among heterodox groups: look at the spread of the Catholic and various Protestant churches in Africa. Does that mean those groups possess the truth, because we can see them winning over souls? I interpret all these phenomena as laying the foundations for a potential return to true Orthodoxy on the part of all these people, whether in Russia, Africa or elsewhere. We can't mistake the foundations for the actual return to the truth, but we can hope it will lead there.

and what are we to make that while World Orthodoxy continues to unify, "True Orthodoxy" continues to splinter?

What about that recently published novel [2011]: Russian Sunrise by Bruce W. Walters, M.D., which urges the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? This novel is a blueprint for Russia to lead the way toward unity with Rome, and just after that publication, the MP apparently re-established rapport with the Vatican.

Bruce W. Walters. Hmmmm. doesn't sound Russian.

The EP is WAY ahead of the MP in any "re-established rapport."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I hope the above is genuinely indicative of a rebirth of piety. Of course, even if true, there would still be the problem of the dubious dogmatic positions of the official Russian Church vis-a-vis their continued membership of the WCC,

Please explain what is dubious about the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Non-Orthodox:

What is unclear here about this official rejection of the “Branch Theory” by the Russian Orthodox Church?:

Quote

2.3. Nevertheless, while recognizing the need to restore our broken Christian unity, the Orthodox Church asserts that genuine unity is possible only in the bosom of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All other “models” of unity seem to us to be unacceptable.

2.4. The Orthodox Church cannot accept the assumption that despite the historical divisions, the fundamental and profound unity of Christians has not been broken and that the Church should be understood as coextensive with the entire “Christian world”, that Christian unity exists across denominational barriers and that the disunity of the churches belongs exclusively to the imperfect level of human relations. According to this conception, the Church remains one, but this oneness is not, as it were, sufficiently manifest in visible form. In this model of unity, the task of Christians is understood not as the restoration of a lost unity but as the manifestation of an existing unity. This model repeats the teaching on “the invisible Church” which appeared during the Reformation.

2.5. The so-called “branch theory”, which is connected with the conception referred to above and asserts the normal and even providential nature of Christianity existing in the form of particular “branches”, is also totally unacceptable.

2.6. Orthodoxy cannot accept that Christian divisions are caused by the inevitable imperfections of Christian history and that they exist only on the historical surface and can be healed or overcome by compromises between denominations.

2.7. The Orthodox Church cannot recognize “the equality of the denominations”. Those who have fallen away from the Church cannot re-unite with her in their present state. The existing dogmatic differences should be overcome, not simply bypassed, and this means that the way to unity lies through repentance, conversion and renewal.

Above is just a brief excerpt, but please read beyond this and tell us what is dogmatically incorrect about this statement.

Then tell us what you find objectionable about the ROC’s rejection of joint prayer with the non-Orthodox:

Quote

Moscow, May 12, Interfax - The Russian Church has once again reassured that it thinks impossible for the Orthodox believers to conduct services together with members of other Christian confessions.

"We would like once again to confirm our intention to refrain from participating in communal prayers with unorthodox believers," said a member of the secretary for interchristian relations of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Priest Alexander Vasyutin to Interfax-Religion. http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=4661

In 2006, before being elected Patriarch, Met Kirill clearly explained why the ROC believed it necessary to continue as members of the WCC. Among other things, Met Kirill stated that if Christendom does not hear the voice of the Russian Church ‘it will hear other voices’, and I’m sure you will agree that it is best if Constantinople is not left as the sole voice of Orthodoxy at such a venue. It is not membership in the WCC that is inherently problematic, but what one does in this capacity. If there are no joint prayers, and no compromises in matters of faith, then there are no “dubious dogmatic positions”.

or their refusal to completely and explicitly repudiate the declaration of Met Sergius and its spiritual legacy of obedience to atheist communism.

Even as early as 1990, the Synod of the Moscow Patriarch stated:

Quote

“We do not at all feel bound by the Declaration of 1927, which remainsfor us a marker of that tragic epoch in the history of our Fatherland.We do not at all idealize this document, recognizing also its coercednature. “

Patriarch Alexis II then stated in 1991:

Quote

"The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, of course, cannot beconsidered voluntary, for, while sustaining terrible pressure, he wasto state things that were far from the truth in order to save people'slives. Today we can say that there are lies mixed into hisDeclaration. The Declaration does not place the Church into a correctrelationship with the state, in fact, the opposite, it destroys thedistance that in a democratic society, must exist between Church andstate."

So, we see that even in 1990, the Moscow Patriarchate spoke of the1927 Declaration and the period under Communism as “that tragic epochin the history of our Fatherland”. They did not praise Met Sergiusfor his Declaration, but recognized it as the result of coercion andin no way expressing the free and authentic voice of the RussianOrthodox Church.

Also in 1991, Patriach Alexis II said the following regarding this“tragic epoch” in an interview published in "Izvestia" (No 137, June10):

Quote

"Being a person of the Church, I must take on myself responsibilityfor all that occurred in the life of my Church: not only for the good,but also for the difficult, the sorrowful, the erroneous."

"Today we can say that falsehood is interspersed in [Met Sergius']Declaration, which stated as its goal 'placing the Church into properrelations with the Soviet government.' But these relations--and in theDeclaration they are clearly defined as the submission of the Churchto the interests of governmental politics--are exactly those which areincorrect from the point of view of the Church."

In the same interview, regarding the statements and activities of theMoscow Patriarchate duringthe time of subjection to the atheist regime, Patriarch Alexis II confessed:

Quote

"Of people, then, to whom these compromises, silence, forced passivityor expressions of loyalty that were permitted by the Church leadershipin those days, have caused pain -- of these people, not only beforeGod, but also before them, I ask forgiveness, understanding, andprayers."

After the enthronement of Patriarch Alexis II, he got down on hisknees at the first Forgiveness Vespers after his enthronement at thebeginning of Great Lent and asked forgiveness for sins committedduring the Soviet period.

In 1995 (as recorded in the periodical “Alive in Christ”) PatriarchAlexis II announced at the laying of the cornerstone for Christ theSavior Cathedral, which was built to atone for the sins of the Russianpeople in turning away from God:

Quote

"Having rebelled against God, condemned the sacred memory of ourancestors, and without the least scruples of conscience destroyed thelabors of the best sons and daughters of our people, we have coveredRussian history with the stain of terrible iniquity. This stainweighs on our conscience, and casts a pall on the spiritual life ofour society."

At the laying of the cornerstone of the same Cathedral, Moscow's mayorYuri Luzhkov added:

Quote

"Let the reconstruction of the main cathedral stand as symbolic proofof hundreds of destroyed churches and millions of lost lives".

In 2004, Met Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad (now PatriarchKirill), who at that time was the chairman of the Dept for ExternalRelations, stated the following in a formal report to the Holy Synodof the MP concerning dialogue with ROCOR and the 2000 document “TheBasic Social Concept”:

Quote

“[Our] Church freely and without any coercion has described the normsof church-state relations, founded upon the word of God and thewitness of many centuries of Church Tradition, including, in part, theexperience of the New Martyrs garnered by the Church in the era ofpersecution at the hands of the totalitarian godless regime. Manyspoke of the historical significance of the 'Basic Social Concept ofthe Russian Orthodox Church' when this document was first adopted bythe 2000 Millennial Hierarchal Synod. Later it became clear: thesignificance of the 'Basic Social Concept' is also in that thisexpression of the Church's teachings opened new opportunities forrapprochement with the Church Abroad. "The Church", states the thirdchapter of the document, "preserves loyalty to the state, but abovethat requirement of loyalty is the law of God. If the state forcesOrthodox believers to apostasize from Christ and His Church and alsotowards sinful acts detrimental to the soul, the Church must refuseobedience to the state."

“The free voice of the Church, heard especially clearly in thisConciliar document, gives us the opportunity to see the 'Declaration'in a new light. While completely understanding that the path ofrelations with the state chosen in 1927 was based on the desire topreserve the possibility of the legal existence of the Church, theHierarchal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church decreed that thiscourse did not accord with the true norms of church-state relations.The epoch of the imprisonment of the Church has come to an end. Inthis way, the problem in our relations with the Church Abroad—whichlasted for many years— as for all intents and purposes removed. Thiswas essentially recognized by the Hierarchal Synod of the RussianOrthodox Church Outside of Russia in 2000. During the recent talks, itbecame very clear that the chapter 'Church and State' in the 'BasicSocial Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church' is seen by both sidesas a faithful reflection of church teachings. Declarationscontradicting these norms, made by the church authorities on bothsides made in the past, under external conditions that were extremelyinhospitable to the Church, cannot in any way be seen by us as actionshaving any validity for the Church.

Does the above not repudiate “Sergianism”? Does the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors, the 2000 document on Church and State relations, the declaration of the Soviet period as a “tragic epoch” in the life of the Church, and the dismissal of the 1927 Declaration of Met Sergius not constitute a “repudiation” of Sergianism?

In 2006, prior to the reunification, Fr. Andrew Phillips of ROCOR hadthis to say regarding the repentance of the MP:

Quote

"Thirdly, we shall always rejoice when members of the MoscowPatriarchate venerate icons of the New Martyrs, when they celebrateour services to the New Martyrs, when they dedicate churches to them.Our hearts rejoice when we see tears of repentance, running down ourown faces, faces in the Moscow Patriarchate, everywhere. In his lastsermon, like a Testament to the whole of the Russian Diaspora, thegreat Metropolitan Antony expressed the thought that: `Only tears ofrepentance can return our crucified homeland to us' (Letters ofMetropolitan Antony, Jordanville 1988, p.124). How can we not rejoice,when Saul becomes Paul, when former persecutors become zealous for theFaith?"

Also prior to the reunification of ROCOR and the MP, Fr. Andrew saidthe following regarding the work of the joint commissions that wereestablished to discuss obstacles to reunification:

Quote

"Yesterday's publication of documents detailing the agreements onformer points of discord between the Moscow Patriarchate and theRussian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) is a historic event. Itreflects the repentance of those who only ten years ago still rejectedand even scorned the central positions of the Church Outside Russia onthe New Martyrs and Confessors, Sergianism and Ecumenism. It reflectsthe will of the Patriarchate to reunite with the historic path ofTruth of the whole Russian Church, faithfully adhered to by ROCOR, andthe will of ROCOR to recognize this. It now remains for all concernedto agree on the Act on Canonical Communion in 2006."

The above quote is taken from Fr. Andrew’s article entitled “TheTriumph of Repentance and theVindication of Church Truth". In an article entitled "THERE IS NOVICTORY WITHOUT REPENTANCE", Fr. Andrew writes concerning thereunification:

Quote

"The recent events in Moscow mark the triumph of Orthodoxy. However,we should not think that they mark the triumph of Orthodox, ratherthey mark the triumph of the repentance of Orthodox. For there is notriumph of Orthodoxy without the repentance of Orthodox, no victorywithout repentance. Only the mystery of repentance brings victory oversin.

"We cannot but help remember the situation of the Russian OrthodoxChurch Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Russian Orthodox Church insideRussia (MP), even only two or three years ago. Then, as ever, theChurch Outside Russia was a persecuted and despised minority, livingin poverty and isolation. Further back, when the New Martyrs andConfessors were canonized in 1981, we recall how we were vilified inthe world media, whether Orthodox or secular.

"All those self-created enemies of ROCOR, if not now passed on, havenow repented or are repenting for their past attitudes towards us.Even those modernists who, flown in from the West, only last Januarywere lobbying in Moscow against our common unity, are having torethink their positions, as their houses, founded on sand, are washedaway from beneath them by the floodwaters of repentance. Our ROCORpositions on dying Ecumenism, on dying Renovationism and on deadSergianism, have now been adopted all through the Patriarchal Churchand are listened to widely in other Local Churches. Only those who areprisoners of the past even think about such death-bringing matters."

The last sentence above is of particular significance for those whohave rejected the reunification. Fr. Andrew fully accepted thereunification and sees it for what it is, the fruit of the repentanceof the MP for the compromises of the Soviet era, the most importantexpression of which was the glorification of the New Martyrs andConfessors.

For those who rejected this reunification and continue to speak against the MP, Fr. Andrew offered the following words in the same article:

Quote

"To those few individuals who could not repent for theirquasi-Protestant, sectarian attitudes, who did not want to see theunity of the Russian Church and in 2006 left the Patriarchate ofMoscow for the Patriarchate of Constantinople, or in 2007 left ROCORfor some sect or other, we say, you are welcome to return. We allmake mistakes. The doors are not shut to you to return. Indeed, weshall rejoice together with you, if you do so.

"Once past the initial euphoria of your decision to leave, theeuphoria that is always created in little groups when you break away,you may wish to return. After the self-congratulatory excitement ofdefensive self-justification, you will feel depressed, isolated andabandoned in your sects. This is the normal psychological process,created by the evil one, who casts us from one emotional extreme toanother, from euphoria to despondency. When that time comes, rememberthese words, and remember that you are welcome to return. Your returnis your act of repentance and, automatically, our act of mutualforgiveness for anything that was done or said in the past."

The fact is, the Russian Orthodox Church has officially repudiated syncretistic and heretical Ecumenism, has repudiated Sergianism; has glorified the New Martyrs and Confessors; and has dedicated much blood, sweat, money, and tears to the strengthening of the faith in Russia. It is unfortunate that there are still some who have never experienced church life in Russia under Soviet times, who have never experienced persecution, who have no understanding of what the hierarchs and clergy endured to spread the faith under these circumstances or to what extent there was any “compromise” – it is unfortunate to see such people reject hundreds of bishops in Russia and all who are under their care even while the entire Orthodox world recognizes them as Orthodox and true hierarchs of the Church.

Where to begin? Firstly, the force of their "rejection" of ecumenism is blunted by their continued membership of the WCC. If they were serious about rejecting ecumenism, they would leave the WCC (like the Georgians did), it's as simple as that.

As for the lame argument that the MP "needs" to remain in the WCC to provide an "authentic" Christian voice, that's the same argument the EP and other founding members put forward when they first entered the WCC. But the Church for centuries has proclaimed the true faith without the WCC. And what evidence do you have that membership of the WCC has been in any way successful at bringing the heterodox over to Orthodoxy?

And they didn't reject ecumenism completely. They only rejected the "branch theory", which still leaves wiggle room if you want to accept other "theories" of ecumenism (there are a lot of them out there). But the fact is all "theories" of ecumenism are against Orthodoxy.

It's not enough to say half-heartedly that there are "lies" mixed in, or that the MP does not "idealize" the Declaration. Why can't they just say "the Declaration was false, we reject it without equivocation, we recognize the confession of those who rejected the Declaration as Orthodox"? Because that would invalidate their entire raison d'etre. The MP still honors Met Sergius' memory and still considers his actions to have been correct and to have "saved" the Church. That is just not true.

And many experienced persecution in Russia without accepting sergianism. They are called the Catacomb Church.

Just to clarify and support what I stated above about sergianism in the MP, here's a relevant quotation that Pat Kirill made, back when he was still Metropolitan of Kaliningrad, back in January 2005:

“We recognize that the model of Church-Staterelations [in the Soviet period] did not correspond to tradition. But we are notcondemning those who realized this model, because there was no other wayof preserving the Church. The Church behaved in the only way she could atthat time. There was another path into the catacombs, but there could be nocatacombs in the Soviet space…”

“The aim of normalising the relationship with the authorities cannotbe interpreted as a betrayal of Church interests. It was adopted by the holyPatriarch Tikhon, and was also expressed in the so-called ‘Epistle of theSolovki Bishops’ in 1926, that is, one year before the publication of ‘TheEpistle of the deputy patriarchal locum tenens and temporary patriarchalSynod’. The essence of the changes in the position of the hierarchy consistedin the fact that the Church, having refused to recognise the legitimacy of thenew power established after the October revolution in 1917, as the powerbecame stronger later, had to recognise it as a state power and establishbilateral relations with it. This position is not blameworthy; historically, theChurch has more than once found herself in a situation in which it has had tocooperate with non-orthodox rulers (for instance, in the period of the GoldenHorde or the Muslim Ottoman Empire).”

That last is from Moscow Church Herald, nos 14-15, pp 243-4.

Maybe the MP rejects Sergianism one moment, and justifies it the next. But can such equivocation be mistaken for an unwavering and constant confession of the truth? Not for me at any rate, not if I'm trying to find where Christ's Church actually lies.

And the MP did not glorify all the saints that ROCOR glorified. In particular, Met Joseph of Petrograd was left out of the MP's canonization of the New Martyrs.

“Through the host ofmartyrs the Church of Russia bore witness to her faith and sowed the seed ofher future rebirth. Among the confessors of Christ we can in full measurename… his Holiness Patriarch Sergius."

This is what Pat Alexis said in 1997, according to Fr Peter Perekrestov in Canadian Orthodox Herald, 1999, no. 4. This doesn't really sound like rejection of sergianism to me.

And the MP did not glorify all the saints that ROCOR glorified. In particular, Met Joseph of Petrograd was left out of the MP's canonization of the New Martyrs.

“Through the host ofmartyrs the Church of Russia bore witness to her faith and sowed the seed ofher future rebirth. Among the confessors of Christ we can in full measurename… his Holiness Patriarch Sergius."

This is what Pat Alexis said in 1997, according to Fr Peter Perekrestov in Canadian Orthodox Herald, 1999, no. 4. This doesn't really sound like rejection of sergianism to me.

This reminds of the dispute when the military code of conduct was changed (The code of conduct is the legal guide for the behavior of military members who are captured by hostile forces). The initial position was that nothing could excuse any US serviceman who broke and divulged information to the enemy. Therefore, the code of conduct insisted that a prisoner of war could not give anything more than rank, serial number and date of birth (the minimum information required by the International Red Cross). Then the decision was made to change the code in recognition of the fact that everybody has a breaking point and that it is senseless to make a promise that cannot be kept. You can read about the six articles of the code at http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/codeofconduct1.htm The hard-core old timers vehemently opposed the change. To give a fraction of an inch was considered by them to constitute treason. As it turned out most folks recognized the folly of this position and supported the new code of conduct.

Same with Mr Gress and his little band of hard-core super Orthodox. In a nut shell, Donatists of the 20th Century.

Each and every "true Orthodox" (isn't that a tautology?) websites tend to write things about passports, Jews, masons, false greenhouse effect, world government etc.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. I'm not sure why it led to such an outburst of anger. I don't understand how someone who lives in the US and speaks no Russian can claim to really know anything about obscure and splintering groups in Russia. There are limits to the ability of the internet when it comes to conducting research.

And the MP did not glorify all the saints that ROCOR glorified. In particular, Met Joseph of Petrograd was left out of the MP's canonization of the New Martyrs.

“Through the host ofmartyrs the Church of Russia bore witness to her faith and sowed the seed ofher future rebirth. Among the confessors of Christ we can in full measurename… his Holiness Patriarch Sergius."

This is what Pat Alexis said in 1997, according to Fr Peter Perekrestov in Canadian Orthodox Herald, 1999, no. 4. This doesn't really sound like rejection of sergianism to me.

This reminds of the dispute when the military code of conduct was changed (The code of conduct is the legal guide for the behavior of military members who are captured by hostile forces). The initial position was that nothing could excuse any US serviceman who broke and divulged information to the enemy. Therefore, the code of conduct insisted that a prisoner of war could not give anything more than rank, serial number and date of birth (the minimum information required by the International Red Cross). Then the decision was made to change the code in recognition of the fact that everybody has a breaking point and that it is senseless to make a promise that cannot be kept. You can read about the six articles of the code at http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/codeofconduct1.htm The hard-core old timers vehemently opposed the change. To give a fraction of an inch was considered by them to constitute treason. As it turned out most folks recognized the folly of this position and supported the new code of conduct.

Same with Mr Gress and his little band of hard-core super Orthodox. In a nut shell, Donatists of the 20th Century.

Donatists taught that those who apostasized could never be forgiven, even if they sincerely repent. Where do I or any True Orthodox teach that? I'm saying that the MP is inconsistent: sometimes, yes, they appear to repudiate what Met Sergius did, but then they'll turn around and justify it. And it's not justifiable. Therefore the MP needs to unambiguously declare Met Sergius' declaration as un-Orthodox, which also involves recognizing that those who resisted the declaration, at the cost of their lives and freedom, were in the right.

Not that you'll actually listen to or consider what I'm saying. It obviously suits your narrow mind to keep repeating "Donatism" and not engage with the actual substance of what's being said.

Each and every "true Orthodox" (isn't that a tautology?) websites tend to write things about passports, Jews, masons, false greenhouse effect, world government etc.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. I'm not sure why it led to such an outburst of anger. I don't understand how someone who lives in the US and speaks no Russian can claim to really know anything about obscure and splintering groups in Russia. There are limits to the ability of the internet when it comes to conducting research.

Because "each and every" is a completely baseless assertion. And, Nectarios, if we're talking about websites, doesn't that kind of entail that we're limiting our research to the internet alone?

Not that I'm expecting you to engage my arguments either. Didn't they teach you how to construct a coherent argument in school?

Each and every "true Orthodox" (isn't that a tautology?) websites tend to write things about passports, Jews, masons, false greenhouse effect, world government etc.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. I'm not sure why it led to such an outburst of anger. I don't understand how someone who lives in the US and speaks no Russian can claim to really know anything about obscure and splintering groups in Russia. There are limits to the ability of the internet when it comes to conducting research.

Because "each and every" is a completely baseless assertion. And, Nectarios, if we're talking about websites, doesn't that kind of entail that we're limiting our research to the internet alone?

Not that I'm expecting you to engage my arguments either. Didn't they teach you how to construct a coherent argument in school?

Why do you continue to personally insult me?

As I've mentioned previously, it is simply my experience of actually living here in addition to the internet. I have said from the beginning that a high percentage of true Orthodox groups are on the extreme fringe across the board. It is ultimately a qualitative assessment. Also this thread has been about larger, societal issues. Sorry to be blunt, but the true Orthodox aren't even on the radar and have no real impact on society at large - since we are talking about the role of the Church in society size does matter. So I'm not really sure how to prove or disprove what is a personal observation, that conspiracy theories are common among "true believer" types. And the second assertion that I've made is not controversial, that these groups are tiny. So other than insulting my ability to reason or my intelligence, what do you actually want from me?

OK, so Macedonia is a red herring. I don't suppose you care to answer my other points, though.

You are not a communion, if you are in communion with nobody.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So apparently, only 26% of Orthodox in America attend services regularly too, and the bigger a parish it is, the bigger percentage of people who do not attend regularly. Good information to review before we judge Russia too harshly.

So apparently, only 26% of Orthodox in America attend services regularly too, and the bigger a parish it is, the bigger percentage of people who do not attend regularly. Good information to review before we judge Russia too harshly.

Not that I'm expecting you to engage my arguments either. Didn't they teach you how to construct a coherent argument in school?

Jonathan, this disrespectful manner of speaking discredits what you are trying to proclaim as the truth. The truth of Orthodoxy does not exist in a vacuum, apart from the virtues of humility, respect, kindness, charity, and self control, among others.

Since the moment that you've joined this thread, you have not ceased being sarcastic, rude, and condescending. Where is Christ in that? Where in that is the Lord who was silent even while He was being condemned to death?

I'm not saying that you should not stand up for and defend what you believe in. Of course you should. But thinking yourself to be "right" in an academic sense will not excuse bad behavior and it will not save anyone's soul, yours, or those of us in this thread that you consider to be heretics.

If you came to Orthodoxy to be "right," then you are no better in Orthodoxy than in whatever group you grew up in -- perhaps worse. The only proper reason to come to the Church is learn to repent of and weep for your own sins.

Even leaving that aside, what is the point that the Economist article was making? From their purely secular point of view, they nevertheless reasonably noted that, given the vast amount of resources the MP had from the State, they should have been able to expand membership much faster by that point (2000) than they actually did.

Those "vast resources" hardly match the vast amounts of tax money that the German, Austrian and Swiss governments collect from their citizens (the "Church Tax") to distribute to the Protestant and Catholic Churches, not to speak of the numerous tax breaks given to the Catholic Church in Italy. Has the Catholic Church in these areas been successful in re-evangelizing their people? No.... and the established Protestant communities are in even worse shape.

What about that recently published novel [2011]: Russian Sunrise by Bruce W. Walters, M.D., which urges the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? This novel is a blueprint for Russia to lead the way toward unity with Rome, and just after that publication, the MP apparently re-established rapport with the Vatican.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Consider the following as well:

1) The official position of the Vatican is that the Consecration of Russia was already accomplished by John Paul II in 1984. This position was officially reiterated in 2000 by a certain Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now the Pope.

2) The novel "Russian Sunrise" is being promoted under the auspices of 'Fatima Crusader', the publications of which regularly attack the Vatican for being too liberal and for "disobeying Fatima" and whose leader, Fr. Nicolas Gruner, has been suspended by the Vatican from the priesthood for many years now.

3) The current "rapport" that now exists between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church began about 2005, upon the election of Joseph Card. Ratzinger to the papacy, and is still a pale shadow of the level of such rapport that existed in the 1970's, in the time of Met. Nikodim.

If anything, the Roman Catholic media and blogosphere (especially in the USA and Italy) are relentlessly negative towards the Russian Orthodox Church (unless Russian liturgy and iconography are the topics of discussion).

Each and every "true Orthodox" (isn't that a tautology?) websites tend to write things about passports, Jews, masons, false greenhouse effect, world government etc.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. I'm not sure why it led to such an outburst of anger. I don't understand how someone who lives in the US and speaks no Russian can claim to really know anything about obscure and splintering groups in Russia. There are limits to the ability of the internet when it comes to conducting research.

Because "each and every" is a completely baseless assertion. And, Nectarios, if we're talking about websites, doesn't that kind of entail that we're limiting our research to the internet alone?

Not that I'm expecting you to engage my arguments either. Didn't they teach you how to construct a coherent argument in school?

Hello, allow me to pontificate in the most insulting manner possible so that I can justify for myself the existence of my small sect.

« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 03:45:54 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Young Russians can meet the boredom and poverty of their lives with drugs, alcohol, promiscuous sex and crime, and all too often do so.

Here we go again. What a paranoid rubbish this Economist is? Apparently the "Democratic" West has no both free speech and opinion, since the pathetic cliches are everywhere.

Not to mention that the same thing said about the Russian youth happens in just about every country in the West as well, and in most of the countries in the Middle East, the Christians are clearly in the minority--so why are we singling out the Russian Church while not talking about the others?

Not that I'm expecting you to engage my arguments either. Didn't they teach you how to construct a coherent argument in school?

I'm not saying that you should not stand up for and defend what you believe in. Of course you should. But thinking yourself to be "right" in an academic sense will not excuse bad behavior and it will not save anyone's soul, yours, or those of us in this thread that you consider to be heretics.

-Fr. John

While what you say here is true Father, this thread is loaded with insults from numerous people, not just Jonathan. I think Jonathan got angry as a certain posters have stated false facts regarding our Church and tried to use the internet to back up their claims, and when Jonathan showed that their sources were faulty, they either ignored what he said or tried to say they don't need the internet to back up their claims.

Again, I'm not trying to justify any sort of bad behavior; I just think all people should read and consider what you have stated in your post in regards to themselves before posting again on this thread, especially since we are in the Great Fast and more of our attention should be focused on love, charity, and humility.

Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.

Where to begin? Firstly, the force of their "rejection" of ecumenism is blunted by their continued membership of the WCC. If they were serious about rejecting ecumenism, they would leave the WCC (like the Georgians did), it's as simple as that.

As for the lame argument that the MP "needs" to remain in the WCC to provide an "authentic" Christian voice, that's the same argument the EP and other founding members put forward when they first entered the WCC. But the Church for centuries has proclaimed the true faith without the WCC. And what evidence do you have that membership of the WCC has been in any way successful at bringing the heterodox over to Orthodoxy?

I too would prefer for the MP to withdraw completely from the WCC, as would ROCOR and many others in the Church. If the Patriarchate of Constantinople would be willing to withdraw from the WCC, I’m sure the MP would consider doing likewise. Unfortunately, the Patriarchate of Constantinople is committed to remaining in the WCC, and within the Ecumenical Movement the words and actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople have often misrepresented the Orthodox faith and been a cause of scandal for Orthodox Christians. While the MP could simply withdraw from the WCC and condemn such involvement, they have instead chosen to be involved in such dialogues to at least ensure that the Orthodox Church is properly represented. As we have seen, Orthodox ecclesiology has been more clearly expressed and defended in these dialogues and venues since the MP became more involved than was the case when the Patriarchate of Constantinople was left to represent the Orthodox Church on its own. This is particularly evident when one looks at the Ravenna document on Primacy that was crafted without the MP, the subsequent rejection of this document by the MP, and the inability of the discussions with the Roman Catholics on Primacy to “progress” since the MP has resumed their involvement. The MP may not have high hopes for the conversion of entire Christian bodies to Orthodoxy through such ecumenical involvement, but I do agree that their involvement has been effective in that true Orthodox ecclesiology has been more accurately expressed and more faithfully defended in such venues through their participation. I also see that since the MP has stood up to the Patriarch of Constantinople regarding the latter’s questionable role in Ecumenism, the Church of Greece and other local churches have raised their voices in protest against EP compromises and have vowed to defend traditional Orthodox faith and ecclesiology in such venues.

And they didn't reject ecumenism completely. They only rejected the "branch theory", which still leaves wiggle room if you want to accept other "theories" of ecumenism (there are a lot of them out there). But the fact is all "theories" of ecumenism are against Orthodoxy.

You must not have read the official document from the Holy Synod on the Non-Orthodox which I quoted from and provided a link to. The MP did not simply reject the branch theory. The MP clearly stated that only the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that unity with the Non-Orthodox cannot occur without agreement in matters of faith. The MP also rejected many erroneous ideas about Christian disunity and Ecumenism such as the belief that historical divisions occurred from misunderstandings or human failings, and the belief that the Church unity can exist despite actual divisions. These last two heretical beliefs are confessed by your own “TOC” with respect to other self-proclaimed “TOC” groups that you are not in communion with but which you consider to be part of the one Church nevertheless.

What is important is that in 2000 the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church officially rejected false and heretical beliefs regarding ecclesiology and clearly expressed the Church’s historical and traditional ecclesiology which they have continued to defend since. While it would be better for all of the Orthodox churches to withdraw from the WCC, membership in such a body is not heretical but only the denial that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

It's not enough to say half-heartedly that there are "lies" mixed in, or that the MP does not "idealize" the Declaration. Why can't they just say "the Declaration was false, we reject it without equivocation, we recognize the confession of those who rejected the Declaration as Orthodox"? Because that would invalidate their entire raison d'etre. The MP still honors Met Sergius' memory and still considers his actions to have been correct and to have "saved" the Church. That is just not true.

The 1927 Declaration was unacceptable because it placed the entire Russian Orthodox Church in subjection to an atheist regime that was intent on destroying the Church. I agree that the MP could have more clearly and unequivocally renounced the 1927 Declaration. However, ROCOR’s historic position was that it could not reunite with the MP until the MP was free and no longer under Soviet control. The MP is no longer under Soviet control, and the Holy Synod in 2000 published their official position on Church-State relations which unequivocally rejected the false understanding expressed in the 1927 Declaration and defended the traditional Orthodox understanding of Church-State relations. If you have quotes from individual hierarchs since 2000 which claim that Patriarch Sergius “saved the Church”, while such private opinions are a cause of concern, such opinions are not more authoritative than the officially expressed position of the Holy Synod in 2000, and neither do such private opinions regarding Patriarch Sergius constitute some kind of heresy.

And many experienced persecution in Russia without accepting sergianism. They are called the Catacomb Church.

-SNIP-

And the MP did not glorify all the saints that ROCOR glorified. In particular, Met Joseph of Petrograd was left out of the MP's canonization of the New Martyrs.

“Through the host ofmartyrs the Church of Russia bore witness to her faith and sowed the seed ofher future rebirth. Among the confessors of Christ we can in full measurename… his Holiness Patriarch Sergius."

This is what Pat Alexis said in 1997, according to Fr Peter Perekrestov in Canadian Orthodox Herald, 1999, no. 4. This doesn't really sound like rejection of sergianism to me.

In 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church glorified a multitude of New Martyrs and Confessors, among whom were listed those who remained with Metropolitan Sergius after the 1927 Declaration, and those such as Met Cyril of Kazan who rejected the path of Metropolitan Sergius. At this time, the MP was not able to provide a final and definitive list of New Martyrs and Confessors because at that time they had not had the opportunity to study the archives to understand exactly who each person was and how their lives ended. When ROCOR glorified the New Martyrs and Confessors years before, this was also done without having access to the archival materials and without extensive knowledge of individual New Martyrs and Confessors. As it turned out, some of those whose names were initially listed among the New Martyrs and Confessors were not even Orthodox Christians. As for Met Joseph of Petrograd, I do not have any information regarding what the MP decided about him, whether or not he is now on their list of New Martyrs, or why he is not on the calendar if he in fact still is not on the calendar. If you claim that he is still not on their list of New Martyrs, do you have any documentation or statements from the MP regarding their decision not to include him?

In any case, it is important to see that the list of New Martyrs and Confessors contains Met Cyril of Kazan and many others who did not follow Met Sergius. It is also important to note that the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has not finalized the list and has still not had the opportunity to study all of the relevant archival material regarding those who suffered under the Soviets. Just last year the bishops of the ROC made the following statement regarding the need for further study of the archival materials to properly honor and glorify those who suffered:

Moscow, February 3, Interfax - The Bishops Council of the Moscow Patriarchate has asked for easier access to state archives for identifying all people oppressed by the Bolsheviks for their beliefs.

"The Church calls on statesmen and public figures to support its study and commemoration of repression victims. In particular, the Church appeals to the heads of institutions controlling archive documents for assisting the soonest identification of everyone who suffered in the years of persecution," the Council said.

"It is necessary to continue the dialog with the state on possible legislative and administrative measures in the provision of access of Church representatives to the archives with respect for the lawful demand for secrecy of private life," the Council said.

Regarding Patriarch Alexis’ remarks about Patriarch Sergius in 1997, since I can only find your quote in the incomplete form in which you have presented it, I do not know if the quote is provided accurately, nor can I determine the context of the quote. Nevertheless, regardless of what Patriarch Alexis stated, Patriarch Sergius is not listed on the MP’s calendar of saints.

I think Jonathan got angry as a certain posters have stated false facts regarding our Church and tried to use the internet to back up their claims, and when Jonathan showed that their sources were faulty, they either ignored what he said or tried to say they don't need the internet to back up their claims.

Your and Jonathan's Church? Aren't you members of separate groups? Aren't there any excommunications, anathemas and jurisdictional jumping among your Churches?

The problem is that Jonathan, who has no clue about the "true Orthodox" in Russia (he wrote that) and no knowledge about Russia at all tries to convince me or Νεκτάριος (who read Russian, have been to Russia and have contact with such groups) that his American "true Orthodox" experience has something in common with the "true Orthodox" in Russia.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I think Jonathan got angry as a certain posters have stated false facts regarding our Church and tried to use the internet to back up their claims, and when Jonathan showed that their sources were faulty, they either ignored what he said or tried to say they don't need the internet to back up their claims.

Your and Jonathan's Church? Aren't you members of separate groups? Aren't there any excommunications, anathemas and jurisdictional jumping among your Churches?

Which of the two Church's in Antioch were Orthodox during the fourth century? Was it St. Meletius' Church or the Church that was responsible for ordaining St. Jerome? Who is part of the Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem or the Church of Romania? What is the status of OCA Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo) who is a deposed deacon of ROCOR?

The problem is that Jonathan, who has no clue about the "true Orthodox" in Russia (he wrote that) and no knowledge about Russia at all tries to convince me or Νεκτάριος (who read Russian, have been to Russia and have contact with such groups) that his American "true Orthodox" experience has something in common with the "true Orthodox" in Russia.

You have claimed that:"Each and every 'true Orthodox' (isn't that a tautology?) websites tend to write things about passports, Jews, masons, false greenhouse effect, world government etc."

But when Jonathan questioned you on this, you have yet to show an example of any TOC websites writing such things.

And while I have not been to Russia and don't speak Russian, I have met with people who have had contact with the TOC Church in Russia, one of whom is Russian and was ordained to a clerical rank in Russia. So why should I take Nektarios' word over theirs? Now if Nektarios had some proof of what he was saying coming from a reliable source (ex. quotes from TOC clergymen, statements from a TOC website, etc.), then I would look at and consider what he wrote.

Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

That's his point, biro. After a decade has past, what has changed from 2000 to 2012 with the Russian Orthodox Church reaching out to young Russians.

Indeed. Has much changed at all in Russia? Or does the Russian Church still remain a meaningless cultural relic of Russia's past with no meaning for today?

Couldn't the same be asked in the Middle Eastern countries? They are mainly Muslim.

They have also mainly undergone for 14 centuries what Russia only went through for less than 85 years, and have no facade to erect. Just to be Christian in the Middle East is to go against the flow of society.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Can we get back to the MP's evangelization efforts please? The discussion Canonical Orthodox vs. "True Orthodox" (sic) should get its on thread.

Apart from that, anyone who complains about the lack of missionary efforts in Muslim countries, has never lived there! You should do it, even for a few weeks, before judging the Christians living there. I have just spent a few months in Egypt, and you can't imagine how extreme it is. The Christians are spending their lives in fear, and their churches can be burnt any time or their daughters kidnapped and forced to be married to a Muslim man...

Father Nicholas Gruner has admitted that he is under a Catholic Bishop and is not suspended despite the Vatican Bureaucracy's attempt to do so. As long as he is under a recognized Catholic Bishop, there is really nothing that those bureaucrats can do. However, those Vatican bureaucrats have attempted to force other Catholic Bishops not to incardinate Father Gruner, but when this happens, Father has found another bishop who is willing to accommodate him. Politics in church affairs is always ugly.

Back on topic: Dr. Walters, who supports the ministry of Father Nicholas Gruner, has been in contact with the MP as he makes frequent trips to Russia. A lot goes on which is not published in the controlled media.

The Father Gruner's Fatima Crusader ministry and the SSPX are making inroads into Russia where they claim to have converted thousands of Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics to their position. Make no doubt about this: the Fatima Crusader ministry in Russia is putting heavy pressure on the MP and other Russians for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary since Father Gruner's ministry and the SSPX do not recognize the fraudulent way in which the so-called 1984 consecration was done since Russia was not mentioned by name.

Have you even bothered to read Russian Sunrise? I have, and it does raise concerns.

These two groups (Fatima Crusader and SSPX) are evangelizing the Russian People with no apparent opposition from the MP.If the MP is actively spreading the Holy Orthodox Faith, why the silence? Why are they giving approval to these two "Catholic" groups by their silence.

What about that recently published novel [2011]: Russian Sunrise by Bruce W. Walters, M.D., which urges the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? This novel is a blueprint for Russia to lead the way toward unity with Rome, and just after that publication, the MP apparently re-established rapport with the Vatican.

Consider the following as well:

1) The official position of the Vatican is that the Consecration of Russia was already accomplished by John Paul II in 1984. This position was officially reiterated in 2000 by a certain Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now the Pope.

2) The novel "Russian Sunrise" is being promoted under the auspices of 'Fatima Crusader', the publications of which regularly attack the Vatican for being too liberal and for "disobeying Fatima" and whose leader, Fr. Nicolas Gruner, has been suspended by the Vatican from the priesthood for many years now.

3) The current "rapport" that now exists between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church began about 2005, upon the election of Joseph Card. Ratzinger to the papacy, and is still a pale shadow of the level of such rapport that existed in the 1970's, in the time of Met. Nikodim.

If anything, the Roman Catholic media and blogosphere (especially in the USA and Italy) are relentlessly negative towards the Russian Orthodox Church (unless Russian liturgy and iconography are the topics of discussion).

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Okay, you have shown two websites so far, one which I couldn't find if they were even affiliated with a TOC synod, and the other is from the Moscow parishes of the ROCOR under Met. Agafangal. I have yet to see where:

Each and every ''true Orthodox'' (isn't that a tautology?) websites tend to write things about passports, Jews, masons, false greenhouse effect, world government etc.

You have cited one, possibly two websites associated with the TOC. I personally know of one more that could be used in regards to passports and world governments. Other than that, I don't believe that "each and every TOC website tends to write things about passports, Jews, masons, false greenhouse effect, world government etc." You can call me stubborn if you wish too as well, but I am not in the TOC because of certain members of the faithful's opinions in regards to passports, masons, etc; I joined the TOC because I believe it to be the Church that our Lord established.

I hope I have said everything in a non-snarky kind of way, but as it's sometimes hard to hear someone's tone of voice when they post on here, I apologize in advance in case I am coming across as that way.

Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.

I had looked into the MP and the ROCOR jurisdiction affiliated with the MP, but I was losing my faith there.

Because I tired of the ecumenism present in Worldwide Orthodoxy and in the statements of the MP (gestures toward Rome), I too joined the TOC (the GOC/HOTCA Synod) during the Nativity Fast in 2011.

Not only that, I have heard about the MP making money promoting the smoking and selling of cigarettes.When priests in the ROCOR compare smoking with slow suicide, I cannot see why the MP has not divested itself of the tobacco industry.

Honestly, the MP would give a much better representation of Orthodox Christianity if they would stop promoting ecumenism and start spreading genuine Orthodox Christianity.

« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 02:53:22 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Honestly, the MP would give a much better representation of Orthodox Christianity if they would stop promoting ecumenism and start spreading genuine Orthodox Christianity.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement. If we want to give a good representation of Orthodoxy, we must show the LOVE of Christ, not concentrate on putting down others.

Thomas Aquinas (a saint in the Roman Catholic Church) had a saying :

Lord, in preaching the love of Truth, let us not forget the truth of Love.

It is possible to preach the Truth in love without offending God.

That is what the GOC/HOTCA tries to do.Would that the MP do likewise! Ojala (Spanish from the Arabic: would that God would allow this to happen).

Read the declaration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.If the Russian Orthodox Church were to preach the Truth at all times, then it would be a powerful spiritual force, and Orthodoxy would be what it was meant to be. Then the faith would be spread to all the world.

« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 03:56:04 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Father Nicholas Gruner has admitted that he is under a Catholic Bishop and is not suspended despite the Vatican Bureaucracy's attempt to do so. As long as he is under a recognized Catholic Bishop, there is really nothing that those bureaucrats can do. However, those Vatican bureaucrats have attempted to force other Catholic Bishops not to incardinate Father Gruner, but when this happens, Father has found another bishop who is willing to accommodate him. Politics in church affairs is always ugly.

Back on topic: Dr. Walters, who supports the ministry of Father Nicholas Gruner, has been in contact with the MP as he makes frequent trips to Russia. A lot goes on which is not published in the controlled media.

The Father Gruner's Fatima Crusader ministry and the SSPX are making inroads into Russia where they claim to have converted thousands of Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics to their position. Make no doubt about this: the Fatima Crusader ministry in Russia is putting heavy pressure on the MP and other Russians for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary since Father Gruner's ministry and the SSPX do not recognize the fraudulent way in which the so-called 1984 consecration was done since Russia was not mentioned by name.

Have you even bothered to read Russian Sunrise? I have, and it does raise concerns.

These two groups (Fatima Crusader and SSPX) are evangelizing the Russian People with no apparent opposition from the MP.If the MP is actively spreading the Holy Orthodox Faith, why the silence? Why are they giving approval to these two "Catholic" groups by their silence.

Why should the elephant obsess on gnats?

Given the well known opposition of the MP to the Vatican and its UGCC, the blocking of the Vatican and its minions' ability to operate in Russia, etc., you have just lost all credibility in my book.

As for Russian Sunrise, why would I waste time reading every obscure kook's book when there are more good books (not to mention, the Good Book) than I can ever read?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Honestly, the MP would give a much better representation of Orthodox Christianity if they would stop promoting ecumenism and start spreading genuine Orthodox Christianity.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement. If we want to give a good representation of Orthodoxy, we must show the LOVE of Christ, not concentrate on putting down others.

Thomas Aquinas (a saint in the Roman Catholic Church) had a saying :

Lord, in preaching the love of Truth, let us not forget the truth of Love.

It is possible to preach the Truth in love without offending God.

That is what the GOC/HOTCA tries to do.Would that the MP do likewise! Ojala (Spanish from the Arabic: would that God would allow this to happen).

Read the declaration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.If the Russian Orthodox Church were to preach the Truth at all times, then it would be a powerful spiritual force, and Orthodoxy would be what it was meant to be. Then the faith would be spread to all the world.

I would like to give my humble opinion and say that, by looking at the recent activities of the russian church, I would say they are doing a pretty good job, especially in Asia. So far I have heard of russian missions in Pakistan, Indoensia, Vietnam, Cambodja, Thailand(a monastery was consecrated a few weeks ago) and the russian church is currently talking with the chinese government about sending missionaries and priests into China. Of course, there is always room for improvement but I wouldn't dismiss the russian church totally.

Concerning the thing about the cigarettes, I think that was meant as a joke, which the russian church criticized (I hope we are talking about the same incident)

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

Its not going to be easy to undo the damage of the communist wretches and their mindF$!@ing of the Russian population.

This, in my view, is part of the problem. All ills of Russian society are blamed on "communism" by outsiders. Lately that is becoming more and more of fashionable excuse domestically. This is branded about as if "communism" were some tiny element of society that wreaked havoc on the rest. The reality is that a very large percentage of society supported the early Bolsheviks because of their political agenda. Thousands upon thousands gleefully destroyed their churches. To this day the Orthodox Church has no real comprehension of its own culpability in this.

This is true. It was a collective sin. (Collectivism, FTW!)

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

The MP doesn't need anyone to feel sorry for it, and I'm not asking anyone to do so either. What I AM trying to do is to understand why it is where it is nowadays. And I can see you're from HOTCA: no need to lecture me on what you think of "World Orthodoxy", or of Latin "papists" such as myself.

I think you're being disingenuous. You ended your post by an appeal to others not to "judge" the MP, which you preceded by a list of the ways in which the MP suffered, which were obviously intended to elicit sympathy from the reader. I'm saying that's all very fine, but I'm still not sympathetic to the MP, since MP hierarchs themselves did just fine, earning their salaries and dachas by kowtowing to atheism in public. And I don't see anything miraculous in the MP having built lots of churches, given that they're all paid for by the state. What's more miraculous is e.g. True Orthodox groups like those under the late Met Valentine of Suzdal repairing dilapidated church buildings out of their own pockets, only to see the refurbished churches seized by the MP later on.

Given how much state support the MP has gotten since the end of communism (if it really ended), I think the slow, if not stagnant, growth of church attendance speaks of the indifference of the MP hierarchs towards their evangelical mission.

Do you realize how tiny such anti-MP groups are? They are also pretty far out there on pretty much every issue.

And that many of their leaders have questionable pasts.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

While Catholic Culture is not an official website, it is one of the most widely-read and authoritative in the English-speaking Catholic Internet world. It's old "PetersNet" ratings were practically the standard for orthodoxy in that world.

The suspension of Fr. Gruner was upheld by the Catholic Church''s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, which acts in the name of the Holy See. Any bishop who claims to "incardinate" Fr. Gruner is doing so invalidly and illicitly. They also tend to be bishops in remote dioceses in Asia, who most likely don't have any idea what's really going on in Rome. The "imprimatur" that Fr. Gruner brandishes on his works come from bishops in India and Papua New Guinea; since he does his publishing in Canada and the USA, those bishops don't have the competence to give him the imprimatur in the first place. (If you want a proper imprimatur you should get it from your local bishop.)

Quote

Father Nicholas Gruner has admitted that he is under a Catholic Bishop and is not suspended despite the Vatican Bureaucracy's attempt to do so. As long as he is under a recognized Catholic Bishop, there is really nothing that those bureaucrats can do. However, those Vatican bureaucrats have attempted to force other Catholic Bishops not to incardinate Father Gruner, but when this happens, Father has found another bishop who is willing to accommodate him. Politics in church affairs is always ugly.

What awful reasoning. Fr. Gruner is not suspended merely because he says isn't?

Quote

Back on topic: Dr. Walters, who supports the ministry of Father Nicholas Gruner, has been in contact with the MP as he makes frequent trips to Russia. A lot goes on which is not published in the controlled media.

The Father Gruner's Fatima Crusader ministry and the SSPX are making inroads into Russia where they claim to have converted thousands of Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics to their position. Make no doubt about this: the Fatima Crusader ministry in Russia is putting heavy pressure on the MP and other Russians for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary since Father Gruner's ministry and the SSPX do not recognize the fraudulent way in which the so-called 1984 consecration was done since Russia was not mentioned by name.

The Fatima Crusader is hardly a heavyweight even in the small Traditional Catholic world, where it is usually ignored. The SSPX also thinks the Consecration hasn't been done, but it has studiously avoided being identified with Gruner, knowing his reputation.

As for the 'claims' of thousands of Russian Orthodox conversions to the SSPX, I haven't seen any such claims, and I assure you that I read a lot of SSPX material every week. The SSPX has exactly one chapel in the Russian Federation, with a monthly Mass:

I don't think that this is because they're "hiding" their other chapels: after all, the Greek Catholics in Russia -- who have more reason to fear persecution than Russian Catholics of the Latin Rite -- have no problem with publicly listing who their priests and where their chapels are.

And if the SSPX is hiding in Russia then why is the above chapel's existence public knowledge?

Quote

Have you even bothered to read Russian Sunrise? I have, and it does raise concerns.

Yes, I have, and it is absolute rubbish. The way it portrays the Patriarch and much of the Russian hierarchy converting almost instantaneously to Catholicism is pure comedy. One scene there, were the bishops admit that the only reason they don't want to become Catholic is that they're afraid that the Russian Orthodox liturgy would also be reformed in the manner of the Novus Ordo, could have only been whipped up by a complete ignoramus. (If that reasoning is true, then why did Russia not turn Catholic when the Roman liturgy was still reverent and in Latin? It's not as if Russia had no Roman Catholic presence before 1917. Indeed it was much larger then than now!)

While Catholic Culture is not an official website, it is one of the most widely-read and authoritative in the English-speaking Catholic Internet world. It's old "PetersNet" ratings were practically the standard for orthodoxy in that world.

The suspension of Fr. Gruner was upheld by the Catholic Church''s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, which acts in the name of the Holy See. Any bishop who claims to "incardinate" Fr. Gruner is doing so invalidly and illicitly. They also tend to be bishops in remote dioceses in Asia, who most likely don't have any idea what's really going on in Rome. The "imprimatur" that Fr. Gruner brandishes on his works come from bishops in India and Papua New Guinea; since he does his publishing in Canada and the USA, those bishops don't have the competence to give him the imprimatur in the first place. (If you want a proper imprimatur you should get it from your local bishop.)

Quote

Father Nicholas Gruner has admitted that he is under a Catholic Bishop and is not suspended despite the Vatican Bureaucracy's attempt to do so. As long as he is under a recognized Catholic Bishop, there is really nothing that those bureaucrats can do. However, those Vatican bureaucrats have attempted to force other Catholic Bishops not to incardinate Father Gruner, but when this happens, Father has found another bishop who is willing to accommodate him. Politics in church affairs is always ugly.

What awful reasoning. Fr. Gruner is not suspended merely because he says isn't?

Quote

Back on topic: Dr. Walters, who supports the ministry of Father Nicholas Gruner, has been in contact with the MP as he makes frequent trips to Russia. A lot goes on which is not published in the controlled media.

The Father Gruner's Fatima Crusader ministry and the SSPX are making inroads into Russia where they claim to have converted thousands of Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics to their position. Make no doubt about this: the Fatima Crusader ministry in Russia is putting heavy pressure on the MP and other Russians for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary since Father Gruner's ministry and the SSPX do not recognize the fraudulent way in which the so-called 1984 consecration was done since Russia was not mentioned by name.

The Fatima Crusader is hardly a heavyweight even in the small Traditional Catholic world, where it is usually ignored. The SSPX also thinks the Consecration hasn't been done, but it has studiously avoided being identified with Gruner, knowing his reputation.

As for the 'claims' of thousands of Russian Orthodox conversions to the SSPX, I haven't seen any such claims, and I assure you that I read a lot of SSPX material every week. The SSPX has exactly one chapel in the Russian Federation, with a monthly Mass:

I don't think that this is because they're "hiding" their other chapels: after all, the Greek Catholics in Russia -- who have more reason to fear persecution than Russian Catholics of the Latin Rite -- have no problem with publicly listing who their priests and where their chapels are.

And if the SSPX is hiding in Russia then why is the above chapel's existence public knowledge?

Quote

Have you even bothered to read Russian Sunrise? I have, and it does raise concerns.

Yes, I have, and it is absolute rubbish. The way it portrays the Patriarch and much of the Russian hierarchy converting almost instantaneously to Catholicism is pure comedy. One scene there, were the bishops admit that the only reason they don't want to become Catholic is that they're afraid that the Russian Orthodox liturgy would also be reformed in the manner of the Novus Ordo, could have only been whipped up by a complete ignoramus. (If that reasoning is true, then why did Russia not turn Catholic when the Roman liturgy was still reverent and in Latin? It's not as if Russia had no Roman Catholic presence before 1917. Indeed it was much larger then than now!)

Russian Sunrise is a novel, not fact, or did you miss that point?What galled me the most in that novel was when the Russian Orthodox Hierarchy accepted the FILIOQUE addition to the Nicene Creed without raising an eyebrow.

Is there any more proof that Father Gruner was suspended than that link you provided. After all, as you mentioned, Father Gruner does have his detractors, and I am not so naive as to accept any old website as the Gospel truth, especially in this age of deceit.

Back to the topic on hand:

When the MP continues to make concessions to the Vatican like sending an official representative of the Russian Hierarchy to Assisi 2011, then yes, they are ecumenists of the worst kind.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Yes, I have, and it is absolute rubbish. The way it portrays the Patriarch and much of the Russian hierarchy converting almost instantaneously to Catholicism is pure comedy. One scene there, were the bishops admit that the only reason they don't want to become Catholic is that they're afraid that the Russian Orthodox liturgy would also be reformed in the manner of the Novus Ordo, could have only been whipped up by a complete ignoramus. (If that reasoning is true, then why did Russia not turn Catholic when the Roman liturgy was still reverent and in Latin? It's not as if Russia had no Roman Catholic presence before 1917. Indeed it was much larger then than now!)

Russian Sunrise is a novel, not fact, or did you miss that point?

Yes, it's a novel, and I clearly refer to it as being non-factual in nature. Did you miss something as obvious as that?

Anyway, this is the last time I'll respond to you.

Quote

Is there any more proof that Father Gruner was suspended than that link you provided. After all, as you mentioned, Father Gruner does have his detractors, and I am not so naive as to accept any old website as the Gospel truth, especially in this age of deceit.

And yet you're willing to accept what Gruner -- a fringe character in Catholicism if ever there was one -- says without question, while the webpage I've shown to you comes from a highly credible Catholic website and you dismiss it out of hand.

Do you reject the New Calendar Church because Elder Paisios made false prophesies?

Above is the original form of the question, which is quite loaded. First of all, there is no such thing as “the New Calendar Church”, there is only the Orthodox Church in which you have some local churches who worship on the New Calendar and some who worship on the Old Calendar. Elder Paisios followed the Old Calendar on Mt. Athos and never spoke of a “New Calendar Church”. When the New Calendar was introduced, it was adopted by some local churches while others continued to follow the Old Calendar, and communion was not broken between local churches which used different calendars because the calendar issue was understood by all not to be a dogmatic issue. It was only claimed to be a dogmatic issue by those who have wished to create and justify various schisms.

Now, *IF* Elder Paisios made “false prophecies”, why would that cause someone to reject the Church and join an Old Calendar schism? In recent times there have been many saints and elders who were part of the Orthodox Church and who spoke out against those who wished to create schisms over the calendar change. Among them, some followed the Old Calendar but spoke against creating schisms over the calendar issue, and some followed the New Calendar out of obedience to their hierarchs. Such elders and saints include Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, Elder Haralampos of Dionysiou, Elder Gervasios Paraskevopoulos, Elder Cleopa of Sihastria, St. Nicholas Planas, Elder Dimitri Gagastathis, Elder Anthimos of St. Anne’s Skete, Elder Porphyrios, and many others. Many of these saints received direct revelations from God regarding the error and pernicious path taken by the Old Calendar schismatics, and these revelations are recorded in books about them. Elder Paisios had nothing to do with the calendar change as he was born the very year the New Calendar was introduced in Greece. Nobody who has remained in the Church after the introduction of the New Calendar has been referred to as a “Paisiosite” or by any such names, while the various Old Calendar schisms have been referred to by such names as “Florinites”, “Matthewites”, etc.

Now, regarding the “false prophecies” of Elder Paisios, since you put “prophecies” in the plural, perhaps you can start a separate thread where these supposed “prophecies” can be listed. Regarding Elder Paisios and General Grapsas, the story translated and posted on the website you have referenced does raise a number of questions. First of all, since General Grapsas is still living, are his exact words regarding the matter quoted anywhere? Does he agree with the story as portrayed on the link you have provided? Since the story indicates that there were witnesses to Elder Paisios’ words, do the witnesses agree with the story as the website portrays? Are there any witnesses that contest this story? What have Elder Paisios’ closest disciples and spiritual children said regarding this story? Is it possible that Met Grapsas and/or other misinterpreted the words of Elder Paisios?

Now, if Elder Paisios did in fact say the words attributed to him, if these words were to be interpreted as presented on the website, and events did not turn out as Elder Paisios said, a whole other series of issues would need to be explored regarding the charism of clairvoyance, how this charism “works”, whether clairvoyance or “prophecy” is inherently conditional, what should we conclude when saints are wrong (Sts. Barsanuphius and John have several comments on this subject), etc.

Of course, since your group is focused on promoting the cause of your schism and denouncing the Patriarchate of Constantinople and those in communion with him, it is certainly in your interest to try to demonstrate that Elder Paisios, and others who are considered to be saints but who spoke against your schisms, are somehow “false elders” or “false prophets”. To make such a claim regarding Elder Paisios, or anyone else for that matter, one has to look at their faith, their entire way of life, the fruits of their lives, and testimonies of others. While we have only your one story regarding a supposed “false prophecy” of Elder Paisios, there are literally thousands of pages of his own written words and counsels; as well as testimonies from others regarding his humility, his meekness, his love of others, the power of his prayers, and the healings and miracles which resulted from his prayers. From the published testimonies of others, as well as from his words, Elder Paisios seems to be the exact opposite of a charlatan who put on a show or who sought attention and recognition from others. When he perceived that people came to him looking for a show or a miracle, he often would turn them away, pretend not to be there, or act like a fool in order to humiliate himself and deflect inappropriate attention. Regarding his clairvoyance, while there is this one story that you have so far provided, many others have been provided testifying to the accuracy of his clairvoyance and his many other gifts.

That being said, saints and elders are not completely infallible and without fault, and mistakes can be made, as Sts. Barsanuphius and John discussed. In fact, Elder Porphyrios once read something that Elder Paisios wrote concerning the Last Days and the Antichrist, and wrote a letter to him forbidding him to speak of such things. Elder Porphyrios said that God will enlighten holy bishops to speak of such matters when it becomes necessary, and it was not the place of Elder Paisios to speak of such things. In obedience to Elder Porphyrios, Elder Paisios agreed to refrain from writing about the End Times and the Antichrist. From this it seems that Elder Porphyrios did not believe that Elder Paisios was enlightened by God concerning these matters, yet Elder Porphyrios nevertheless continued to have great reverence for Elder Paisios and still considered him to be a great saint.

This letter of Elder Porphyrios to Elder Paisios is preserved in one of the monasteries on Mt. Athos, and the subject is related in an interview of Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphu who personally knew Elder Porphyrios. For an English translation of this interview, go to:

The subject of the letter of Elder Porphyrios to Elder Paisios can be found on the third talk entitled "03 Greek Elders-Evmenios" starting at 22:04. Met Neophytos begins speaking about the subject of the end times around 15:58.

Instead of trying to find small faults with individual saints and elders who spoke against creating schisms over the calendar issue, it would be much more profitable and edifying to start a new thread containing the lives and words of those who belonged to your particular “TOC” group, who are considered to be “saints” by your particular “TOC” group, and who expressed agreement with your official “no grace on the New Calendar” ecclesiology which Met Chrysostom of Florina referred to as “cacadox” and Met Petros of Astoria referred to as “spiritually ill”. I have searched for such examples, and so far I have not found any. But, perhaps you will enlighten me in a separate thread devoted to this theme.

Do you reject the New Calendar Church because Elder Paisios made false prophesies?

Above is the original form of the question, which is quite loaded. First of all, there is no such thing as “the New Calendar Church”, there is only the Orthodox Church in which you have some local churches who worship on the New Calendar and some who worship on the Old Calendar. Elder Paisios followed the Old Calendar on Mt. Athos and never spoke of a “New Calendar Church”. When the New Calendar was introduced, it was adopted by some local churches while others continued to follow the Old Calendar, and communion was not broken between local churches which used different calendars because the calendar issue was understood by all not to be a dogmatic issue. It was only claimed to be a dogmatic issue by those who have wished to create and justify various schisms.

Now, *IF* Elder Paisios made “false prophecies”, why would that cause someone to reject the Church and join an Old Calendar schism? In recent times there have been many saints and elders who were part of the Orthodox Church and who spoke out against those who wished to create schisms over the calendar change. Among them, some followed the Old Calendar but spoke against creating schisms over the calendar issue, and some followed the New Calendar out of obedience to their hierarchs. Such elders and saints include Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, Elder Haralampos of Dionysiou, Elder Gervasios Paraskevopoulos, Elder Cleopa of Sihastria, St. Nicholas Planas, Elder Dimitri Gagastathis, Elder Anthimos of St. Anne’s Skete, Elder Porphyrios, and many others. Many of these saints received direct revelations from God regarding the error and pernicious path taken by the Old Calendar schismatics, and these revelations are recorded in books about them. Elder Paisios had nothing to do with the calendar change as he was born the very year the New Calendar was introduced in Greece. Nobody who has remained in the Church after the introduction of the New Calendar has been referred to as a “Paisiosite” or by any such names, while the various Old Calendar schisms have been referred to by such names as “Florinites”, “Matthewites”, etc.

Now, regarding the “false prophecies” of Elder Paisios, since you put “prophecies” in the plural, perhaps you can start a separate thread where these supposed “prophecies” can be listed. Regarding Elder Paisios and General Grapsas, the story translated and posted on the website you have referenced does raise a number of questions. First of all, since General Grapsas is still living, are his exact words regarding the matter quoted anywhere? Does he agree with the story as portrayed on the link you have provided? Since the story indicates that there were witnesses to Elder Paisios’ words, do the witnesses agree with the story as the website portrays? Are there any witnesses that contest this story? What have Elder Paisios’ closest disciples and spiritual children said regarding this story? Is it possible that Met Grapsas and/or other misinterpreted the words of Elder Paisios?

Now, if Elder Paisios did in fact say the words attributed to him, if these words were to be interpreted as presented on the website, and events did not turn out as Elder Paisios said, a whole other series of issues would need to be explored regarding the charism of clairvoyance, how this charism “works”, whether clairvoyance or “prophecy” is inherently conditional, what should we conclude when saints are wrong (Sts. Barsanuphius and John have several comments on this subject), etc.

Of course, since your group is focused on promoting the cause of your schism and denouncing the Patriarchate of Constantinople and those in communion with him, it is certainly in your interest to try to demonstrate that Elder Paisios, and others who are considered to be saints but who spoke against your schisms, are somehow “false elders” or “false prophets”. To make such a claim regarding Elder Paisios, or anyone else for that matter, one has to look at their faith, their entire way of life, the fruits of their lives, and testimonies of others. While we have only your one story regarding a supposed “false prophecy” of Elder Paisios, there are literally thousands of pages of his own written words and counsels; as well as testimonies from others regarding his humility, his meekness, his love of others, the power of his prayers, and the healings and miracles which resulted from his prayers. From the published testimonies of others, as well as from his words, Elder Paisios seems to be the exact opposite of a charlatan who put on a show or who sought attention and recognition from others. When he perceived that people came to him looking for a show or a miracle, he often would turn them away, pretend not to be there, or act like a fool in order to humiliate himself and deflect inappropriate attention. Regarding his clairvoyance, while there is this one story that you have so far provided, many others have been provided testifying to the accuracy of his clairvoyance and his many other gifts.

That being said, saints and elders are not completely infallible and without fault, and mistakes can be made, as Sts. Barsanuphius and John discussed. In fact, Elder Porphyrios once read something that Elder Paisios wrote concerning the Last Days and the Antichrist, and wrote a letter to him forbidding him to speak of such things. Elder Porphyrios said that God will enlighten holy bishops to speak of such matters when it becomes necessary, and it was not the place of Elder Paisios to speak of such things. In obedience to Elder Porphyrios, Elder Paisios agreed to refrain from writing about the End Times and the Antichrist. From this it seems that Elder Porphyrios did not believe that Elder Paisios was enlightened by God concerning these matters, yet Elder Porphyrios nevertheless continued to have great reverence for Elder Paisios and still considered him to be a great saint.

This letter of Elder Porphyrios to Elder Paisios is preserved in one of the monasteries on Mt. Athos, and the subject is related in an interview of Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphu who personally knew Elder Porphyrios. For an English translation of this interview, go to:

The subject of the letter of Elder Porphyrios to Elder Paisios can be found on the third talk entitled "03 Greek Elders-Evmenios" starting at 22:04. Met Neophytos begins speaking about the subject of the end times around 15:58.

Instead of trying to find small faults with individual saints and elders who spoke against creating schisms over the calendar issue, it would be much more profitable and edifying to start a new thread containing the lives and words of those who belonged to your particular “TOC” group, who are considered to be “saints” by your particular “TOC” group, and who expressed agreement with your official “no grace on the New Calendar” ecclesiology which Met Chrysostom of Florina referred to as “cacadox” and Met Petros of Astoria referred to as “spiritually ill”. I have searched for such examples, and so far I have not found any. But, perhaps you will enlighten me in a separate thread devoted to this theme.

Uh-huh. So I suppose you accept without question that all those "saints" received "direct revelations from God" about us "schismatics"?

Yes, I have, and it is absolute rubbish. The way it portrays the Patriarch and much of the Russian hierarchy converting almost instantaneously to Catholicism is pure comedy. One scene there, were the bishops admit that the only reason they don't want to become Catholic is that they're afraid that the Russian Orthodox liturgy would also be reformed in the manner of the Novus Ordo, could have only been whipped up by a complete ignoramus. (If that reasoning is true, then why did Russia not turn Catholic when the Roman liturgy was still reverent and in Latin? It's not as if Russia had no Roman Catholic presence before 1917. Indeed it was much larger then than now!)

Russian Sunrise is a novel, not fact, or did you miss that point?

Yes, it's a novel, and I clearly refer to it as being non-factual in nature. Did you miss something as obvious as that?

Anyway, this is the last time I'll respond to you.

Quote

Is there any more proof that Father Gruner was suspended than that link you provided. After all, as you mentioned, Father Gruner does have his detractors, and I am not so naive as to accept any old website as the Gospel truth, especially in this age of deceit.

And yet you're willing to accept what Gruner -- a fringe character in Catholicism if ever there was one -- says without question, while the webpage I've shown to you comes from a highly credible Catholic website and you dismiss it out of hand.

Sorry, you've just completely lost all credibility.

Sorry, since most Catholic websites are tainted with their heretical beliefs in the filioque, papal supremacy and papal infallibility, they have lost all credibility in my eyes too. However, I do pray for Catholics. In fact, we all need prayers for we all have sinned.

Likewise, I pray for the MP and the EP, that they may repent of their errors of ecumenism, which is preventing the spread of the Gospel as ecumenism runs contrary to the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church. Furthermore, ecumenism and syncretism promote confusion in the faithful and in those who are inquiring into the church. This should not be so.

p.s. I could list a lot of defrocked Catholic priests who were beyond the fringes; priests who committed pedophilia, murder, gun running, and engaged in drugs, and who are now serving prison sentences if they have not committed suicide first. Which of those sins did Father Gruner commit? Why are you so intent on slandering him? Lord have mercy.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 02:31:40 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

While Catholic Culture is not an official website, it is one of the most widely-read and authoritative in the English-speaking Catholic Internet world. It's old "PetersNet" ratings were practically the standard for orthodoxy in that world.

The suspension of Fr. Gruner was upheld by the Catholic Church''s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, which acts in the name of the Holy See. Any bishop who claims to "incardinate" Fr. Gruner is doing so invalidly and illicitly. They also tend to be bishops in remote dioceses in Asia, who most likely don't have any idea what's really going on in Rome. The "imprimatur" that Fr. Gruner brandishes on his works come from bishops in India and Papua New Guinea; since he does his publishing in Canada and the USA, those bishops don't have the competence to give him the imprimatur in the first place. (If you want a proper imprimatur you should get it from your local bishop.)

Quote

Father Nicholas Gruner has admitted that he is under a Catholic Bishop and is not suspended despite the Vatican Bureaucracy's attempt to do so. As long as he is under a recognized Catholic Bishop, there is really nothing that those bureaucrats can do. However, those Vatican bureaucrats have attempted to force other Catholic Bishops not to incardinate Father Gruner, but when this happens, Father has found another bishop who is willing to accommodate him. Politics in church affairs is always ugly.

What awful reasoning. Fr. Gruner is not suspended merely because he says isn't?

Quote

Back on topic: Dr. Walters, who supports the ministry of Father Nicholas Gruner, has been in contact with the MP as he makes frequent trips to Russia. A lot goes on which is not published in the controlled media.

The Father Gruner's Fatima Crusader ministry and the SSPX are making inroads into Russia where they claim to have converted thousands of Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics to their position. Make no doubt about this: the Fatima Crusader ministry in Russia is putting heavy pressure on the MP and other Russians for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary since Father Gruner's ministry and the SSPX do not recognize the fraudulent way in which the so-called 1984 consecration was done since Russia was not mentioned by name.

The Fatima Crusader is hardly a heavyweight even in the small Traditional Catholic world, where it is usually ignored. The SSPX also thinks the Consecration hasn't been done, but it has studiously avoided being identified with Gruner, knowing his reputation.

As for the 'claims' of thousands of Russian Orthodox conversions to the SSPX, I haven't seen any such claims, and I assure you that I read a lot of SSPX material every week. The SSPX has exactly one chapel in the Russian Federation, with a monthly Mass:

I don't think that this is because they're "hiding" their other chapels: after all, the Greek Catholics in Russia -- who have more reason to fear persecution than Russian Catholics of the Latin Rite -- have no problem with publicly listing who their priests and where their chapels are.

And if the SSPX is hiding in Russia then why is the above chapel's existence public knowledge?

Quote

Have you even bothered to read Russian Sunrise? I have, and it does raise concerns.

Yes, I have, and it is absolute rubbish. The way it portrays the Patriarch and much of the Russian hierarchy converting almost instantaneously to Catholicism is pure comedy. One scene there, were the bishops admit that the only reason they don't want to become Catholic is that they're afraid that the Russian Orthodox liturgy would also be reformed in the manner of the Novus Ordo, could have only been whipped up by a complete ignoramus. (If that reasoning is true, then why did Russia not turn Catholic when the Roman liturgy was still reverent and in Latin? It's not as if Russia had no Roman Catholic presence before 1917. Indeed it was much larger then than now!)

Russian Sunrise is a novel, not fact, or did you miss that point?What galled me the most in that novel was when the Russian Orthodox Hierarchy accepted the FILIOQUE addition to the Nicene Creed without raising an eyebrow.

Is there any more proof that Father Gruner was suspended than that link you provided. After all, as you mentioned, Father Gruner does have his detractors, and I am not so naive as to accept any old website as the Gospel truth, especially in this age of deceit.

9/13/2001 edition of L'Osservatore Romano. I'm sure you can obtain it via interlibrary loan or email lormail@catholicreview.org (which publishes the English edition in the US) for a copy of the communique from Cardinal Hoyos.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

While Catholic Culture is not an official website, it is one of the most widely-read and authoritative in the English-speaking Catholic Internet world. It's old "PetersNet" ratings were practically the standard for orthodoxy in that world.

The suspension of Fr. Gruner was upheld by the Catholic Church''s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, which acts in the name of the Holy See. Any bishop who claims to "incardinate" Fr. Gruner is doing so invalidly and illicitly. They also tend to be bishops in remote dioceses in Asia, who most likely don't have any idea what's really going on in Rome. The "imprimatur" that Fr. Gruner brandishes on his works come from bishops in India and Papua New Guinea; since he does his publishing in Canada and the USA, those bishops don't have the competence to give him the imprimatur in the first place. (If you want a proper imprimatur you should get it from your local bishop.)

Quote

Father Nicholas Gruner has admitted that he is under a Catholic Bishop and is not suspended despite the Vatican Bureaucracy's attempt to do so. As long as he is under a recognized Catholic Bishop, there is really nothing that those bureaucrats can do. However, those Vatican bureaucrats have attempted to force other Catholic Bishops not to incardinate Father Gruner, but when this happens, Father has found another bishop who is willing to accommodate him. Politics in church affairs is always ugly.

What awful reasoning. Fr. Gruner is not suspended merely because he says isn't?

Quote

Back on topic: Dr. Walters, who supports the ministry of Father Nicholas Gruner, has been in contact with the MP as he makes frequent trips to Russia. A lot goes on which is not published in the controlled media.

The Father Gruner's Fatima Crusader ministry and the SSPX are making inroads into Russia where they claim to have converted thousands of Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics to their position. Make no doubt about this: the Fatima Crusader ministry in Russia is putting heavy pressure on the MP and other Russians for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary since Father Gruner's ministry and the SSPX do not recognize the fraudulent way in which the so-called 1984 consecration was done since Russia was not mentioned by name.

The Fatima Crusader is hardly a heavyweight even in the small Traditional Catholic world, where it is usually ignored. The SSPX also thinks the Consecration hasn't been done, but it has studiously avoided being identified with Gruner, knowing his reputation.

As for the 'claims' of thousands of Russian Orthodox conversions to the SSPX, I haven't seen any such claims, and I assure you that I read a lot of SSPX material every week. The SSPX has exactly one chapel in the Russian Federation, with a monthly Mass:

I don't think that this is because they're "hiding" their other chapels: after all, the Greek Catholics in Russia -- who have more reason to fear persecution than Russian Catholics of the Latin Rite -- have no problem with publicly listing who their priests and where their chapels are.

And if the SSPX is hiding in Russia then why is the above chapel's existence public knowledge?

Quote

Have you even bothered to read Russian Sunrise? I have, and it does raise concerns.

Yes, I have, and it is absolute rubbish. The way it portrays the Patriarch and much of the Russian hierarchy converting almost instantaneously to Catholicism is pure comedy. One scene there, were the bishops admit that the only reason they don't want to become Catholic is that they're afraid that the Russian Orthodox liturgy would also be reformed in the manner of the Novus Ordo, could have only been whipped up by a complete ignoramus. (If that reasoning is true, then why did Russia not turn Catholic when the Roman liturgy was still reverent and in Latin? It's not as if Russia had no Roman Catholic presence before 1917. Indeed it was much larger then than now!)

Russian Sunrise is a novel, not fact, or did you miss that point?What galled me the most in that novel was when the Russian Orthodox Hierarchy accepted the FILIOQUE addition to the Nicene Creed without raising an eyebrow.

Is there any more proof that Father Gruner was suspended than that link you provided. After all, as you mentioned, Father Gruner does have his detractors, and I am not so naive as to accept any old website as the Gospel truth, especially in this age of deceit.

9/13/2001 edition of L'Osservatore Romano. I'm sure you can obtain it via interlibrary loan or email lormail@catholicreview.org (which publishes the English edition in the US) for a copy of the communique from Cardinal Hoyos.

I read a copy of the suspension which Father Gruner and his detractors published, and it dealt with Father Gruner's not being incardinated under his former bishop. However, Father Gruner is currently incardinated under another Catholic bishop from India, so wouldn't this suspension now be lifted? And if not, why not?

Again, what crime has Father Gruner committed that would warrant his suspension?

Is it the same threatened suspension that faces the Catholic Priest, Father Pavone and has forced him to be grounded? Sheesh.

~~~~~

Honestly, from what I have read, it appears that the real reason behind Father Gruner's suspension is the fact that he is disrupting and interfering with the Vatican-Russian rapport due to his repeated requests for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and his claim that said consecration has not been properly executed. Thus both the Catholic and the Russian Orthodox Church supposedly feel harassed by Father Gruner, and his questionable suspension is one sure way to silence him, or so the Vatican bureaucrats thought.

Am I a supporter of Father Gruner? No.However, this whole scenario smells fishy.

Back on topic:

Father Gruner's Fatima Crusade and the SSPX have both gone on record as opposing the Ecumenical Assisi gatherings sponsored by the Vatican, yet the MP has continued to send official Russian Orthodox Hierarchs to said events.

This scandalous ecumenical prayer meeting has scandalized many Orthodox and non-Orthodox.

Again, if the MP were to cease participating in these heretical prayer meetings sponsored by the Vatican and the WCC, and repent of their sins of ecumenism, then Orthodoxy would spread.

Once again, I pray for the MP and the EP, that they may repent of their errors of ecumenism, which is preventing the spread of the Gospel as ecumenism runs contrary to the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church. Furthermore, ecumenism and syncretism promote confusion in the faithful and in those who are inquiring into the church. This should not be so.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 03:13:07 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

While Catholic Culture is not an official website, it is one of the most widely-read and authoritative in the English-speaking Catholic Internet world. It's old "PetersNet" ratings were practically the standard for orthodoxy in that world.

The suspension of Fr. Gruner was upheld by the Catholic Church''s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, which acts in the name of the Holy See. Any bishop who claims to "incardinate" Fr. Gruner is doing so invalidly and illicitly. They also tend to be bishops in remote dioceses in Asia, who most likely don't have any idea what's really going on in Rome. The "imprimatur" that Fr. Gruner brandishes on his works come from bishops in India and Papua New Guinea; since he does his publishing in Canada and the USA, those bishops don't have the competence to give him the imprimatur in the first place. (If you want a proper imprimatur you should get it from your local bishop.)

Quote

Father Nicholas Gruner has admitted that he is under a Catholic Bishop and is not suspended despite the Vatican Bureaucracy's attempt to do so. As long as he is under a recognized Catholic Bishop, there is really nothing that those bureaucrats can do. However, those Vatican bureaucrats have attempted to force other Catholic Bishops not to incardinate Father Gruner, but when this happens, Father has found another bishop who is willing to accommodate him. Politics in church affairs is always ugly.

What awful reasoning. Fr. Gruner is not suspended merely because he says isn't?

Quote

Back on topic: Dr. Walters, who supports the ministry of Father Nicholas Gruner, has been in contact with the MP as he makes frequent trips to Russia. A lot goes on which is not published in the controlled media.

The Father Gruner's Fatima Crusader ministry and the SSPX are making inroads into Russia where they claim to have converted thousands of Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics to their position. Make no doubt about this: the Fatima Crusader ministry in Russia is putting heavy pressure on the MP and other Russians for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary since Father Gruner's ministry and the SSPX do not recognize the fraudulent way in which the so-called 1984 consecration was done since Russia was not mentioned by name.

The Fatima Crusader is hardly a heavyweight even in the small Traditional Catholic world, where it is usually ignored. The SSPX also thinks the Consecration hasn't been done, but it has studiously avoided being identified with Gruner, knowing his reputation.

As for the 'claims' of thousands of Russian Orthodox conversions to the SSPX, I haven't seen any such claims, and I assure you that I read a lot of SSPX material every week. The SSPX has exactly one chapel in the Russian Federation, with a monthly Mass:

I don't think that this is because they're "hiding" their other chapels: after all, the Greek Catholics in Russia -- who have more reason to fear persecution than Russian Catholics of the Latin Rite -- have no problem with publicly listing who their priests and where their chapels are.

And if the SSPX is hiding in Russia then why is the above chapel's existence public knowledge?

Quote

Have you even bothered to read Russian Sunrise? I have, and it does raise concerns.

Yes, I have, and it is absolute rubbish. The way it portrays the Patriarch and much of the Russian hierarchy converting almost instantaneously to Catholicism is pure comedy. One scene there, were the bishops admit that the only reason they don't want to become Catholic is that they're afraid that the Russian Orthodox liturgy would also be reformed in the manner of the Novus Ordo, could have only been whipped up by a complete ignoramus. (If that reasoning is true, then why did Russia not turn Catholic when the Roman liturgy was still reverent and in Latin? It's not as if Russia had no Roman Catholic presence before 1917. Indeed it was much larger then than now!)

Russian Sunrise is a novel, not fact, or did you miss that point?What galled me the most in that novel was when the Russian Orthodox Hierarchy accepted the FILIOQUE addition to the Nicene Creed without raising an eyebrow.

Is there any more proof that Father Gruner was suspended than that link you provided. After all, as you mentioned, Father Gruner does have his detractors, and I am not so naive as to accept any old website as the Gospel truth, especially in this age of deceit.

9/13/2001 edition of L'Osservatore Romano. I'm sure you can obtain it via interlibrary loan or email lormail@catholicreview.org (which publishes the English edition in the US) for a copy of the communique from Cardinal Hoyos.

I read a copy of the suspension which Father Gruner and his detractors published, and it dealt with Father Gruner's not being incardinated under his former bishop. However, Father Gruner is currently incardinated under another Catholic bishop from India, so wouldn't this suspension now be lifted? And if not, why not?

Again, what crime has Father Gruner committed that would warrant his suspension?

Is it the same threatened suspension that faces the Catholic Priest, Father Pavone and has forced him to be grounded? Sheesh.

~~~~~

Honestly, from what I have read, it appears that the real reason behind Father Gruner's suspension is the fact that he is disrupting and interfering with the Vatican-Russian rapport due to his repeated requests for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and his claim that said consecration has not been properly executed. Thus both the Catholic and the Russian Orthodox Church supposedly feel harassed by Father Gruner, and his questionable suspension is one sure way to silence him, or so the Vatican bureaucrats thought.

Am I a supporter of Father Gruner? No.However, this whole scenario smells fishy.

Back on topic:

Father Gruner's Fatima Crusade and the SSPX have both gone on record as opposing the Ecumenical Assisi gatherings sponsored by the Vatican, yet the MP has continued to send official Russian Orthodox Hierarchs to said events.

This scandalous ecumenical prayer meeting has scandalized many Orthodox and non-Orthodox.

Again, if the MP were to cease participating in these heretical prayer meetings sponsored by the Vatican and the WCC, and repent of their sins of ecumenism, then Orthodoxy would spread.

Once again, I pray for the MP and the EP, that they may repent of their errors of ecumenism, which is preventing the spread of the Gospel as ecumenism runs contrary to the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church. Furthermore, ecumenism and syncretism promote confusion in the faithful and in those who are inquiring into the church. This should not be so.

I cannot answer all those questions. I can only tell you where notice of his suspension was published by an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Do you reject the New Calendar Church because Elder Paisios made false prophesies?

Above is the original form of the question, which is quite loaded. First of all, there is no such thing as “the New Calendar Church”, there is only the Orthodox Church in which you have some local churches who worship on the New Calendar and some who worship on the Old Calendar. Elder Paisios followed the Old Calendar on Mt. Athos and never spoke of a “New Calendar Church”. When the New Calendar was introduced, it was adopted by some local churches while others continued to follow the Old Calendar, and communion was not broken between local churches which used different calendars because the calendar issue was understood by all not to be a dogmatic issue. It was only claimed to be a dogmatic issue by those who have wished to create and justify various schisms.

Now, *IF* Elder Paisios made “false prophecies”, why would that cause someone to reject the Church and join an Old Calendar schism? In recent times there have been many saints and elders who were part of the Orthodox Church and who spoke out against those who wished to create schisms over the calendar change. Among them, some followed the Old Calendar but spoke against creating schisms over the calendar issue, and some followed the New Calendar out of obedience to their hierarchs. Such elders and saints include Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, Elder Haralampos of Dionysiou, Elder Gervasios Paraskevopoulos, Elder Cleopa of Sihastria, St. Nicholas Planas, Elder Dimitri Gagastathis, Elder Anthimos of St. Anne’s Skete, Elder Porphyrios, and many others. Many of these saints received direct revelations from God regarding the error and pernicious path taken by the Old Calendar schismatics, and these revelations are recorded in books about them. Elder Paisios had nothing to do with the calendar change as he was born the very year the New Calendar was introduced in Greece. Nobody who has remained in the Church after the introduction of the New Calendar has been referred to as a “Paisiosite” or by any such names, while the various Old Calendar schisms have been referred to by such names as “Florinites”, “Matthewites”, etc.

Now, regarding the “false prophecies” of Elder Paisios, since you put “prophecies” in the plural, perhaps you can start a separate thread where these supposed “prophecies” can be listed. Regarding Elder Paisios and General Grapsas, the story translated and posted on the website you have referenced does raise a number of questions. First of all, since General Grapsas is still living, are his exact words regarding the matter quoted anywhere? Does he agree with the story as portrayed on the link you have provided? Since the story indicates that there were witnesses to Elder Paisios’ words, do the witnesses agree with the story as the website portrays? Are there any witnesses that contest this story? What have Elder Paisios’ closest disciples and spiritual children said regarding this story? Is it possible that Met Grapsas and/or other misinterpreted the words of Elder Paisios?

Now, if Elder Paisios did in fact say the words attributed to him, if these words were to be interpreted as presented on the website, and events did not turn out as Elder Paisios said, a whole other series of issues would need to be explored regarding the charism of clairvoyance, how this charism “works”, whether clairvoyance or “prophecy” is inherently conditional, what should we conclude when saints are wrong (Sts. Barsanuphius and John have several comments on this subject), etc.

Of course, since your group is focused on promoting the cause of your schism and denouncing the Patriarchate of Constantinople and those in communion with him, it is certainly in your interest to try to demonstrate that Elder Paisios, and others who are considered to be saints but who spoke against your schisms, are somehow “false elders” or “false prophets”. To make such a claim regarding Elder Paisios, or anyone else for that matter, one has to look at their faith, their entire way of life, the fruits of their lives, and testimonies of others. While we have only your one story regarding a supposed “false prophecy” of Elder Paisios, there are literally thousands of pages of his own written words and counsels; as well as testimonies from others regarding his humility, his meekness, his love of others, the power of his prayers, and the healings and miracles which resulted from his prayers. From the published testimonies of others, as well as from his words, Elder Paisios seems to be the exact opposite of a charlatan who put on a show or who sought attention and recognition from others. When he perceived that people came to him looking for a show or a miracle, he often would turn them away, pretend not to be there, or act like a fool in order to humiliate himself and deflect inappropriate attention. Regarding his clairvoyance, while there is this one story that you have so far provided, many others have been provided testifying to the accuracy of his clairvoyance and his many other gifts.

That being said, saints and elders are not completely infallible and without fault, and mistakes can be made, as Sts. Barsanuphius and John discussed. In fact, Elder Porphyrios once read something that Elder Paisios wrote concerning the Last Days and the Antichrist, and wrote a letter to him forbidding him to speak of such things. Elder Porphyrios said that God will enlighten holy bishops to speak of such matters when it becomes necessary, and it was not the place of Elder Paisios to speak of such things. In obedience to Elder Porphyrios, Elder Paisios agreed to refrain from writing about the End Times and the Antichrist. From this it seems that Elder Porphyrios did not believe that Elder Paisios was enlightened by God concerning these matters, yet Elder Porphyrios nevertheless continued to have great reverence for Elder Paisios and still considered him to be a great saint.

This letter of Elder Porphyrios to Elder Paisios is preserved in one of the monasteries on Mt. Athos, and the subject is related in an interview of Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphu who personally knew Elder Porphyrios. For an English translation of this interview, go to:

The subject of the letter of Elder Porphyrios to Elder Paisios can be found on the third talk entitled "03 Greek Elders-Evmenios" starting at 22:04. Met Neophytos begins speaking about the subject of the end times around 15:58.

Instead of trying to find small faults with individual saints and elders who spoke against creating schisms over the calendar issue, it would be much more profitable and edifying to start a new thread containing the lives and words of those who belonged to your particular “TOC” group, who are considered to be “saints” by your particular “TOC” group, and who expressed agreement with your official “no grace on the New Calendar” ecclesiology which Met Chrysostom of Florina referred to as “cacadox” and Met Petros of Astoria referred to as “spiritually ill”. I have searched for such examples, and so far I have not found any. But, perhaps you will enlighten me in a separate thread devoted to this theme.

Uh-huh. So I suppose you accept without question that all those "saints" received "direct revelations from God" about us "schismatics"?

Read the life of Elder Ieronymos of Aegina.

St. Ieronymos did not counsel people to go into schism.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

He counseled his spiritual children to remain faithful to tradition. For him, that meant ultimately leaving the State Church. He died in communion with Abp Auxentios of Athens, who served his funeral. His spiritual children were given over to the care of Fr Niphon Astyfides, the brother of Met Petros of Astoria. You should ask Fr Anastasios for more details about that.

He counseled his spiritual children to remain faithful to tradition. For him, that meant ultimately leaving the State Church. He died in communion with Abp Auxentios of Athens, who served his funeral. His spiritual children were given over to the care of Fr Niphon Astyfides, the brother of Met Petros of Astoria. You should ask Fr Anastasios for more details about that.

As I understand it, he, like Elder Pilotheos Zervakos, had spiritual children following both calendars, in the state church and not.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

However, we should be concerned with the MP's ecumenical overtures to the Vatican by sending representatives to the Assisi Ecumenical prayer meetings. This rapport with the Vatican greatly disturbs the Orthodox Faith and confuses the Orthodox faithful.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 05:24:34 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

He counseled his spiritual children to remain faithful to tradition. For him, that meant ultimately leaving the State Church. He died in communion with Abp Auxentios of Athens, who served his funeral. His spiritual children were given over to the care of Fr Niphon Astyfides, the brother of Met Petros of Astoria. You should ask Fr Anastasios for more details about that.

As I understand it, he, like Elder Pilotheos Zervakos, had spiritual children following both calendars, in the state church and not.

Perhaps. If that is true, that would at least suggest that he and Elder Philotheos did not consider the old calendarists schismatics. I know that it's a little unclear in which jurisdiction Elder Philotheos reposed, but I am certain Elder Ieronymos reposed in the Old Calendar Church.

He counseled his spiritual children to remain faithful to tradition. For him, that meant ultimately leaving the State Church. He died in communion with Abp Auxentios of Athens, who served his funeral. His spiritual children were given over to the care of Fr Niphon Astyfides, the brother of Met Petros of Astoria. You should ask Fr Anastasios for more details about that.

As I understand it, he, like Elder Pilotheos Zervakos, had spiritual children following both calendars, in the state church and not.

Perhaps. If that is true, that would at least suggest that he and Elder Philotheos did not consider the old calendarists schismatics. I know that it's a little unclear in which jurisdiction Elder Philotheos reposed, but I am certain Elder Ieronymos reposed in the Old Calendar Church.

Which one? The one with grace or the others without?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Uh-huh. So I suppose you accept without question that all those "saints" received "direct revelations from God" about us "schismatics"?

Read the life of Elder Ieronymos of Aegina.

Yes, I do accept the stories regarding the visions and revelations from God which these saints received when they were in great anguish concerning the calendar issue and passed much time in fasting, in tears, and in prayer, humbly seeking from God the resolution to the calendar issue. Elder Joseph the Hesychast was a "Matthewite" Old Calendarist, and later joined the "Florinites", but he could not find peace with this arrangement and was in constant anguish until it was revealed to him that the “the Church is found in the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople". After this was revealed to him, he experience a great deal of peace from above. He then left the Old Calendarists, returned to the Church, and experienced much grace there.

Elder Ephraim of Katounakia was himself a "Matthewite" Old Calendarist for many years and lived with a "Matthewite" elder on Mt. Athos for decades, but he was also in anguish regarding this schismatic position until it was revealed to him by God that the Church is with the Patriarch and not to be found in schism. His Life relates that when he returned to the Church he always saw the Divine Grace consecrating the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ, whereas when he was with the Old Calendarist it was as if there was a veil over his eyes and he could not clearly see Divine Grace during the consecration of the gifts.

Elder Haralampos of Dionysiou was with the “Florinites” but also became convinced that this was a false path, and so he too returned to the Church and achieved great sanctity.

Elder Ephraim of Philotheou and Arizona was born in Volos and raised in an Old Calendarist church. I believe Elder Joseph was still with the Old Calendarists when Elder Ephraim joined him on the Holy Mountain, but of course he too returned to the Church along with Elder Joseph.

Why did these holy men all renounce their affiliation with the Old Calendarists and return to the Church and to communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople? They were all holy men, men of prayer, who reached great sanctity after their departure from schism. I have no reason to think that such stories are made up or in any way false regarding the visions and revelations from God which led to their return to the Church.

Regarding Elder Ieronymos, while serving as a priest in the Church of Greece in 1923 (before the calendar change), the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ appeared to him in the form of actual flesh and blood. This frightened him greatly, and he never served the Divine Liturgy again after this. It is true that he continued to follow the Old Calendar after the introduction of the New Calendar in Greece, but his Life clearly says that he never spoke out about the calendar change or encouraged people to leave the Church or join schisms over the calendar issue. He served those who came to him regardless of whether they followed the New or Old Calendars. His Life does not describe any revelations or visions that he had regarding the calendar issue, and indicates that he simply followed the Old out of preference but without condemning those on those on the New Calendar or promoting fanaticism.

Elder Philotheos (Zervakos) spoke out against the New Calendar and also against the fanatical Old Calendarists. He struggled, prayed, and labored for the return of the Church of Greece to the Old Calendar and was very grieved that such a return was not accomplished during his life. Wishing to repose on the Old Calendar, but not in schism from the Church, he invited Archimandrite Dionysios of Simonopetra on Mt. Athos to hear his confession and conduct his funeral on the Old Calendar. Archimandrite Dionysios (spiritual son of both Elder Philotheos and Elder Aemilianos, and spiritual father of the nuns of the Entry of the Theotokos Monastery in Maryland under ROCOR) was and is in communion with the Orthodox Church.

I cannot answer all those questions. I can only tell you where notice of his suspension was published by an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church.

Frankly, why should we be concerned with the schismatic and heretical pontifications of the Roman Catholic Church ?

What a hilarious statement to read from a schismatic. Schism is schism is schism. You are as much outside the Church as any Catholic, just ask St. Cyril.

How do you not know that you are in schism and we of the Old Calendar are not in schism?

The insidious thing about Ecumenism and Syncretism is that it silently creeps upon one in the guise of doing good and of being charitable to those who are in heresy and in error.

I know because I used to attend those ecumenical prayer services with my Greek Orthodox Priest as I sang in the choir.I slowly began to realize, however, that it was wrong to be listening to an Episcopalian or Methodist female priest who refused to say any politically incorrect terms like Father, Son, King, and Lord in the prayers that were given to her. And here she was praying on the Solea next to the Orthodox Priest. Her words caused a turbulent storm within my soul. And I realized that I had left Catholicism for what? Here I was praying with Catholics and Protestants. Why did I go through that painful catechumenate where I had to renounce the errors of Catholicism and then I found myself praying with them as if they had no errors? How ridiculous. How insane.

And this is what the MP is also doing when he sent his representatives to Assisi 2011. He is causing much turmoil in the minds and hearts of the Orthodox Faithful who are told that Catholics are in error, but that it is okay to attend services with then. Again, how ridiculous. How insane.

And this is why we are not growing. If only the faith of Worldwide Orthodoxy were more consistent with that of the ancient Orthodox faith.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 11:35:39 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

I cannot answer all those questions. I can only tell you where notice of his suspension was published by an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church.

Frankly, why should we be concerned with the schismatic and heretical pontifications of the Roman Catholic Church ?

What a hilarious statement to read from a schismatic. Schism is schism is schism. You are as much outside the Church as any Catholic, just ask St. Cyril.

How do you not know that you are in schism and we of the Old Calendar are not in schism?

The insidious thing about Ecumenism and Syncretism is that it silently creeps upon one in the guise of doing good and of being charitable to those who are in heresy and in error.

I know because I used to attend those ecumenical prayer services with my Greek Orthodox Priest as I sang in the choir.I slowly began to realize, however, that it was wrong to be listening to an Episcopalian or Methodist female priest who refused to say any politically incorrect terms like Father, Son, King, and Lord in the prayers that were given to her. And here she was praying on the Solea next to the Orthodox Priest. Her words caused a turbulent storm within my soul. And I realized that I had left Catholicism for what? Here I was praying with Catholics and Protestants. Why did I go through that painful catechumenate where I had to renounce the errors of Catholicism and then I found myself praying with them as if they had no errors? How ridiculous. How insane.

And this is what the MP is also doing when he sent his representatives to Assisi 2011. He is causing much turmoil in the minds and hearts of the Orthodox Faithful who are told that Catholics are in error, but that it is okay to attend services with then. Again, how ridiculous. How insane.

And this is why we are not growing. If only the faith of Worldwide Orthodoxy were more consistent with that of the ancient Orthodox faith.

"World Orthodoxy" is causing turbulence? Have you seen the number of schism amongst you old calendarists? Have you seen how almost no old calendarist body is in communion with any other? Do you think that the existence of priests, and even bishops, who are acting out of line is enough to warrant schism? Is this Orthodoxy? Certainly not! In True Orthodoxy - not Old Calendarism - the Bishops are accountable to Synods, to their brother bishops. You Old Calendarists instead prefer to just declare everyone anathema who does not meet your leaders personal preferences. It is YOUR "church" that causes turbulence and tumult.

I cannot answer all those questions. I can only tell you where notice of his suspension was published by an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church.

Frankly, why should we be concerned with the schismatic and heretical pontifications of the Roman Catholic Church ?

What a hilarious statement to read from a schismatic. Schism is schism is schism. You are as much outside the Church as any Catholic, just ask St. Cyril.

How do you not know that you are in schism and we of the Old Calendar are not in schism?

The insidious thing about Ecumenism and Syncretism is that it silently creeps upon one in the guise of doing good and of being charitable to those who are in heresy and in error.

I know because I used to attend those ecumenical prayer services with my Greek Orthodox Priest as I sang in the choir.I slowly began to realize, however, that it was wrong to be listening to an Episcopalian or Methodist female priest who refused to say any politically incorrect terms like Father, Son, King, and Lord in the prayers that were given to her. And here she was praying on the Solea next to the Orthodox Priest. Her words caused a turbulent storm within my soul. And I realized that I had left Catholicism for what? Here I was praying with Catholics and Protestants. Why did I go through that painful catechumenate where I had to renounce the errors of Catholicism and then I found myself praying with them as if they had no errors? How ridiculous. How insane.

And this is what the MP is also doing when he sent his representatives to Assisi 2011. He is causing much turmoil in the minds and hearts of the Orthodox Faithful who are told that Catholics are in error, but that it is okay to attend services with then. Again, how ridiculous. How insane.

And this is why we are not growing. If only the faith of Worldwide Orthodoxy were more consistent with that of the ancient Orthodox faith.

"World Orthodoxy" is causing turbulence? Have you seen the number of schism amongst you old calendarists? Have you seen how almost no old calendarist body is in communion with any other? Do you think that the existence of priests, and even bishops, who are acting out of line is enough to warrant schism? Is this Orthodoxy? Certainly not! In True Orthodoxy - not Old Calendarism - the Bishops are accountable to Synods, to their brother bishops. You Old Calendarists instead prefer to just declare everyone anathema who does not meet your leaders personal preferences. It is YOUR "church" that causes turbulence and tumult.

While it's unfortunate that there is division among us Old Calendarists, we still refuse to enter into communion with a body that openly preaches heresy. When St. Maximus the Confessor was asked by the Monothelites, ""To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster." The man of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of faith. But tell me: on what basis have all the churches, as you say, entered into communion? If it is on a foundation of truth, I do not wish to be separated from them."St. Demetrius of Rostov, The Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints, vol. 5, p. 366

Even though not everybody in World Orthodoxy accepts or teaches the heresy of Ecumenism, the fact that it is a heresy and is openly taught and practiced by a numerous amount of clergy without any kind of punishment by fellow bishops is enough to warrant us to cease communion with World Orthodoxy, which is an Orthodox practice, not schism. Hopefully there comes a time that all of the Old Calendarists will recognize that we all share the same faith, as today we recognize both the synods in 4th century Antioch eventually had the same faith even though they were out of communion with each other, and can unite on that.

Although you obviously disagree with our position, hopefully you can understand where we're coming from.

Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.

I cannot answer all those questions. I can only tell you where notice of his suspension was published by an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church.

Frankly, why should we be concerned with the schismatic and heretical pontifications of the Roman Catholic Church ?

What a hilarious statement to read from a schismatic. Schism is schism is schism. You are as much outside the Church as any Catholic, just ask St. Cyril.

How do you not know that you are in schism and we of the Old Calendar are not in schism?

The insidious thing about Ecumenism and Syncretism is that it silently creeps upon one in the guise of doing good and of being charitable to those who are in heresy and in error.

I know because I used to attend those ecumenical prayer services with my Greek Orthodox Priest as I sang in the choir.I slowly began to realize, however, that it was wrong to be listening to an Episcopalian or Methodist female priest who refused to say any politically incorrect terms like Father, Son, King, and Lord in the prayers that were given to her. And here she was praying on the Solea next to the Orthodox Priest. Her words caused a turbulent storm within my soul. And I realized that I had left Catholicism for what? Here I was praying with Catholics and Protestants. Why did I go through that painful catechumenate where I had to renounce the errors of Catholicism and then I found myself praying with them as if they had no errors? How ridiculous. How insane.

And this is what the MP is also doing when he sent his representatives to Assisi 2011. He is causing much turmoil in the minds and hearts of the Orthodox Faithful who are told that Catholics are in error, but that it is okay to attend services with then. Again, how ridiculous. How insane.

And this is why we are not growing. If only the faith of Worldwide Orthodoxy were more consistent with that of the ancient Orthodox faith.

"World Orthodoxy" is causing turbulence? Have you seen the number of schism amongst you old calendarists? Have you seen how almost no old calendarist body is in communion with any other? Do you think that the existence of priests, and even bishops, who are acting out of line is enough to warrant schism? Is this Orthodoxy? Certainly not! In True Orthodoxy - not Old Calendarism - the Bishops are accountable to Synods, to their brother bishops. You Old Calendarists instead prefer to just declare everyone anathema who does not meet your leaders personal preferences. It is YOUR "church" that causes turbulence and tumult.

While it's unfortunate that there is division among us Old Calendarists, we still refuse to enter into communion with a body that openly preaches heresy. When St. Maximus the Confessor was asked by the Monothelites, ""To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster." The man of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of faith. But tell me: on what basis have all the churches, as you say, entered into communion? If it is on a foundation of truth, I do not wish to be separated from them."St. Demetrius of Rostov, The Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints, vol. 5, p. 366

Even though not everybody in World Orthodoxy accepts or teaches the heresy of Ecumenism, the fact that it is a heresy and is openly taught and practiced by a numerous amount of clergy without any kind of punishment by fellow bishops is enough to warrant us to cease communion with World Orthodoxy, which is an Orthodox practice, not schism. Hopefully there comes a time that all of the Old Calendarists will recognize that we all share the same faith, as today we recognize both the synods in 4th century Antioch eventually had the same faith even though they were out of communion with each other, and can unite on that.

Although you obviously disagree with our position, hopefully you can understand where we're coming from.

So you believe that the body of Christ is fractured amongst many different Old Calendarist groups which are not in communion (that is, in schism) with each other? Where in the fathers may I read of this ecclesiological concept that the body of Christ may be many, and that the succession of the Apostles may be many, so that there are many rocks upon which the Church is built? Is this not the very ecumenist heresy which the Old Calendarists use to justify their existence?

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

I cannot answer all those questions. I can only tell you where notice of his suspension was published by an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church.

Frankly, why should we be concerned with the schismatic and heretical pontifications of the Roman Catholic Church ?

What a hilarious statement to read from a schismatic. Schism is schism is schism. You are as much outside the Church as any Catholic, just ask St. Cyril.

How do you not know that you are in schism and we of the Old Calendar are not in schism?

The insidious thing about Ecumenism and Syncretism is that it silently creeps upon one in the guise of doing good and of being charitable to those who are in heresy and in error.

I know because I used to attend those ecumenical prayer services with my Greek Orthodox Priest as I sang in the choir.I slowly began to realize, however, that it was wrong to be listening to an Episcopalian or Methodist female priest who refused to say any politically incorrect terms like Father, Son, King, and Lord in the prayers that were given to her. And here she was praying on the Solea next to the Orthodox Priest. Her words caused a turbulent storm within my soul. And I realized that I had left Catholicism for what? Here I was praying with Catholics and Protestants. Why did I go through that painful catechumenate where I had to renounce the errors of Catholicism and then I found myself praying with them as if they had no errors? How ridiculous. How insane.

And this is what the MP is also doing when he sent his representatives to Assisi 2011. He is causing much turmoil in the minds and hearts of the Orthodox Faithful who are told that Catholics are in error, but that it is okay to attend services with then. Again, how ridiculous. How insane.

And this is why we are not growing. If only the faith of Worldwide Orthod